RT: .@vita_dao is excited to announce "The Longevity Prize" in collaboration with @foresightinst and @mfoundation - a crowdsourced longevity prize to unlock progress in longevity research.
https://www.longevityprize.com...
https://www.vitadao.com/blog-a...

转发：@vita_dao很高兴与@foresightinst和@mfoundation合作宣布“长寿奖”，这是一个众包的长寿奖，旨在开启长寿研究的进展。
https://www.longevityprize.com...
https://www.vitadao.com/blog-a...

Also, BitTrex should make its branding more dinosaur-themed. https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...

此外，BitTrex应该使其品牌更加以恐龙为主题。https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...

@zooko A different question to ask might be: on what dimensions do you want stubbornness, on what dimensions do you want scattershot action, and on what dimensions do you want coordinated action? Different needs lead to different levels of structure, (de)centralization, (in)formality...

@zooko要问的另一个问题可能是：在什么维度上你想要固执，在什么维度上你想要散漫的行动，在什么维度上你想要协调的行动？不同的需求导致不同层次的结构，（去）集中，（在）形式。。。

@zooko Bitcoin governance has many problems, but being able to enforce schelling fences is one of its stregths. And I think if there was an official Bitcoin Council this intentional stubbornness would be much weaker.

@zooko比特币治理存在许多问题，但能够实施谢林围栏是其优势之一。我认为，如果有一个官方比特币委员会，这种故意的固执就会弱得多。

@zooko Basically, the goal of making the dominant structure informal can be precisely to put a cap on the level of legitimacy that it can acquire.
So the only thing that can have high levels of legitimacy is impersonal principles like "immutability" and "21 million"

@zooko基本上，使主导结构非正式的目标可以准确地为其可以获得的合法性水平设定上限。
因此，唯一能够具有高度合法性的是像“不变性”和“2100万”这样的非个人原则

@zooko I think "tyrannies of structurelessness are bad" is far too strong a statement.
> When informal elites are combined with a myth of "structurelessness," there can be no attempt to put limits on the use of power
This seems false for example (eg. see Bitcoin governance)

@zooko我认为“无结构的暴政是坏的”这句话太过强硬了。
&燃气轮机；当非正式精英与“无结构”的神话结合在一起时，就不能试图限制权力的使用
例如，这似乎是错误的（例如，参见比特币治理）

@TBSocialist @OneDeuxTriSeiGo Anything called "supply-side" is typically not left-leaning, but it is by definition production-focused!

@TBSocial@OneDeuxTriSeiGo任何被称为“供应方”的东西通常都不是左倾的，但根据定义，它是以生产为中心的！

@alltejuupptaget > Their output isn't much affected by morale
Given that output of soldiers is very much affected by morale, why would that not be true for civilian workers?

@alltejuupptaget>；他们的产出受士气影响不大
既然士兵的产出在很大程度上受到士气的影响，为什么文职人员的情况就不是这样呢？

Lots of responses around consumer sentiment and investor sentiment so far, but relatively little around worker sentiment.
Surely worker sentiment is the most important here? The morale of the people actually producing stuff? https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...

到目前为止，人们对消费者情绪和投资者情绪的反应很多，但对工人情绪的反应相对较少。
当然，工人的情绪在这里是最重要的？实际生产产品的人的士气如何？https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...

Is there any economic research on how morale affects economic growth?
It feels like everyone agrees that in military contexts, morale is absolutely critical. So surely it should have a significant impact in regular life too. But I haven't seen anyone trying to talk about this.

有没有关于士气如何影响经济增长的经济学研究？
似乎每个人都同意，在军事环境中，士气绝对至关重要。因此，它肯定也会对正常生活产生重大影响。但我没有看到有人试图谈论这件事。

@gakonst Isn't the whole point of unsecured lending that you just accept this risk, and try to minimize it by being better at filtering?

@gakonst不正是无担保贷款的全部意义在于你接受这种风险，并通过更好地过滤来尽量减少它吗？

RT: Don't let them vilify privacy. #privacyisnormal https://twitter.com/arstechnic... https://t.co/alWD7dFCmO

RT：不要让他们诽谤隐私。隐私是正常的https://twitter.com/arstechnic...对不起，对不起。https://t.co/alWD7dFCmO

@avsa @C1aranMurray There's lots of weird political intersections in this issue imo.
eg. for me personally I feel like I'm recovering from being misled by Club of Rome-style environmentalism of my youth that gave a strong sense that more population is net-bad (which I now understand to be mistaken)

@avsa@C1aranMurray在这个问题上有很多奇怪的政治交叉点。
就我个人而言，我觉得自己正在从我年轻时被罗马俱乐部式的环境保护主义所误导中恢复过来，这种主义给人一种强烈的感觉，即更多的人口是绝对有害的（我现在明白这是错的）

@avsa Human beings generally have strong positive externalities on other existing and future human beings (which historical experience shows us greatly overwhelms limits-to-resources concerns). So there is a public goods rationale for encouraging higher population.

@avsa人类通常对其他现有和未来的人类具有强大的正外部性（历史经验表明，这大大超过了对资源的限制）。因此，鼓励人口增加有一个公共品的理由。

RT: 0. Fun piece of history about this:
the deposit contract the community used was just the first one to be uploaded w/ the verified bytecode
as far as I know, no one even knows who deployed it!
It wasn't "official" until the community opted to use it
https://twitter.com/BitcoinIsS...

转发：0。这是一段有趣的历史：
社区使用的存款合同只是第一个通过验证字节码上传的合同
据我所知，甚至没有人知道是谁部署了它！
直到社区选择使用它，它才是“官方的”
https://twitter.com/BitcoinIsS...

@Noahpinion Yeah, it's more a backup than an optimum.

@是的，这更像是一个备份，而不是一个最佳。

@Noahpinion The right-wing version is philanthropists, the left-wing version is like five clones of DARPA with different focuses (one for biotech, one for...)
And the idealistic futurist version is something based on quadratic funding.
All are good imo.

@Noahpinion右翼版本是慈善家，左翼版本就像DARPA的五个克隆体，具有不同的重点（一个用于生物技术，一个用于…）
理想主义的未来主义版本是基于二次投资的。
我觉得都很好。

@Noahpinion A possible alternative to "societal war mode" is "remove constraints and give resources to groups of people who are doing important stuff, and let/help them keep doing it, without really trying to get the entire public involved"

@Noahpinion“社会战争模式”的一个可能替代方案是“消除限制，为正在做重要事情的群体提供资源，让/帮助他们继续做，而不是真正试图让整个公众参与进来。”

@Noahpinion There are of course lots of brilliant people quietly working on those problems, and the intellectual discourse was key in inspiring them to do so, so it was not useless.

@毫无疑问，有很多才华横溢的人在默默地研究这些问题，而知识分子的话语是激励他们这样做的关键，所以这并不是没有用的。

@Noahpinion Abstract arguments about the future aren't good for public motivation, even if they are correct unfortunately.
Didn't work for climate change, didn't work for covid in early 2020, isn't working for life extension, isn't working for pandemic preparedness today...

@关于未来的抽象论据对公众动机不利，即使不幸的是这些论据是正确的。
没有为气候变化工作，没有在2020年初为新冠肺炎工作，没有为延长寿命工作，没有为今天的大流行准备工作。。。