RT: @VitalikButerin While overall I like this post. there is one very fundamental point on which I think it is just completely wrong and unfortunately much else turns on it. I hope you'll agree with me once I clarify and if not I am very happy to be on it as I think it is basically verifiable.

转发：@VitalikButerin，总的来说我喜欢这个帖子。有一个非常基本的观点，我认为这是完全错误的，不幸的是，还有很多其他的观点。我希望一旦我澄清，你会同意我的观点，如果不是的话，我很高兴参与进来，因为我认为这基本上是可以核实的。

Experimenting with gitcoin bounties to crowdsource improving my blog. Goal: add dark mode.
(Note: read carefully. The requirements include actually going through the posts and making sure they look good in dark mode, and editing if they don't) https://twitter.com/owocki/sta...

尝试gitcoin的悬赏来众包改善我的博客。目标：添加暗模式。
（注意：仔细阅读。要求包括实际浏览帖子，确保它们在黑暗模式下看起来很好，如果没有，则进行编辑）https://twitter.com/owocki/sta...

@glenweyl @lastcontrarian @audreyt yeah, when you start identifying with "not being caught up in the discourse" it's easy to accidentally start identifying with the largest counter-discourse you haven't yet labeled as being "a discourse". True independence requires actually thinking about the object-level issue

@glenweyl@lastcontrarian@audreyt是的，当你开始认同“不要陷入话语”时，很容易意外地开始认同你尚未被标记为“话语”的最大的反话语。真正的独立性需要真正思考对象级别的问题

@RichardHanania @glenweyl And I read that book and it was great!
Though I have been wondering whether your views have changed over the past year (after all, they have on other issues eg. China)

@RichardHanania@glenweyl和我读了那本书，很棒！
尽管我一直在想，在过去的一年里，你们的观点是否发生了变化（毕竟，他们在其他问题上，比如中国问题上，有过改变）

@glenweyl I think @RichardHanania would be better at explaining the position; his article https://richardhanania.substac... outlines the case.
(I'm not a "true believer" in this way of thinking personally; I'm closer to the "US foreign policy is an incoherent mash of lots of impulses" viewpoint)

@glenweyl我认为@RichardHanania会更好地解释这个位置；他的文章https://richardhanania.substac...概述了案例。
（我个人并不是这种思考方式的“真正信徒”；我更接近于“美国外交政策是一个由许多冲动组成的不连贯的混合体”的观点）

@glenweyl On the India example, the argument is that wokeness is making it harder to maintain the alliance because the pesky wokes keep criticizing Modi, whereas a 1970s US establishment would have cleanly come to a pragmatic understanding.

@格伦·威尔（glenweyl）以印度为例，他们的论点是，由于讨厌的沃克人不断批评莫迪，沃克尼斯（wokeness）正在使维持联盟变得更加困难，而20世纪70年代的美国机构本可以明确地达成务实的理解。

@glenweyl I think the "wokeness runs US foreign policy" people generally explicitly define it as a post-2010 phenomenon.

@glenweyl我认为“wokeness掌管美国外交政策”的人通常明确地将其定义为2010年后的现象。

@HotSpri75088483 @maximlott yes, both (and taiwan)

@Hotstri75088483@maximlott是的，都有（和台湾）

@maximlott I used to be more sympathetic to this until I properly appreciated how East Asia runs just fine on the ISO-style system even in spoken language. It doesn't feel unnatural at all!

@马克西姆洛特我以前对此更为同情，直到我正确地理解了东亚是如何在ISO风格体系中运行良好的，甚至在口语中也是如此。这一点都不觉得不自然！

@BSmokes_ @TimBeiko @ercwl @allenf32 @udiWertheimer @adam3us Poisson process means there is a tiny chance of something happening every millisecond. Blocks in PoW are like this.
In PoS, a block appears once every 12s, it's a scheduled interval.

@BSmokes_u@TimBeiko@ercwl@allenf32@udiWertheimer@adam3us泊松过程意味着每毫秒发生某事的可能性很小。PoW中的方块是这样的。
在PoS中，一个块每12秒出现一次，这是一个预定的间隔。

@allenf32 @udiWertheimer @ercwl It's definitely not true that "the main motivation for the merge is reducing gas fees"
Scaling gains from PoS are far too small even if we could properly take advantage of them. We don't want 3x, we want 100x. Only sharding/rollups deliver 100x+
We have been consistent on this.

@allenf32@udiWertheimer@ercwl“合并的主要动机是降低汽油费”这绝对不是真的
即使我们可以适当地利用它们，PoS的缩放增益也太小了。我们不想要3倍，我们想要100倍。只有切分/汇总才能提供100倍+
我们在这方面一直保持一致。

@TimBeiko @ercwl @allenf32 @udiWertheimer @adam3us These gains are limited in practice because state is the main bottleneck and not execution, but they're there.

@TimBeiko@ercwl@allenf32@udiWertheimer@adam3us这些收益在实践中是有限的，因为状态是主要瓶颈，而不是执行，但它们确实存在。

@TimBeiko @ercwl @allenf32 @udiWertheimer @adam3us Also, "PoS doesn't help scaling" is overstated. It does somewhat:
* No Poisson process -> no linear uncle rates -> higher gaslimits safer; similar gains to Bitcoin NG ideas
* Allows committees, which are needed for sharding (incl dank-)
* Finality -> higher gaslimits safer

@TimBeiko@ercwl@allenf32@udiWertheimer@adam3us同样，“PoS无助于扩展”被夸大了。它在某种程度上：
*无泊松过程->；非线性叔叔率->；更高的气体极限更安全；与比特币类似的收益
*允许共享所需的委员会（包括dank-）
*最终性->；更高的气体极限更安全

@joshuamarch @Noahpinion @eatscifi My understanding is that the biggest problem with cultivated meat is that it doesn't have an immune system, so even the tiniest contamination can ruin a whole batch (and bioreactors sterile enough to protect against this are very expensive). How do you solve this?

@joshuamarch@Noahpinion@eatscifi我的理解是，养殖肉最大的问题是它没有免疫系统，所以即使是最微小的污染也可能毁掉整批肉（而无菌的生物反应器足以防止这种情况的发生非常昂贵）。你如何解决这个问题？

@satofishi @chrisbbreuer No, the unit of weight.

@satofishi@chrisbbreuer No，重量单位。

@satofishi @chrisbbreuer And the pound?

@satofishi@chrisbbreuer和英镑？

@pourteaux It's not just some irrational emotional thing; norms are important because they reduce conflict, and violations legitimize other violations. "Don't invade people" is a deeper norm than violations within countries, consequences of the norm breaking are almost unboundedly terrible.

@这不仅仅是一些非理性的情感问题；规范之所以重要，是因为它们减少了冲突，违规行为使其他违规行为合法化。“不要侵犯人民”是一种比国家内部的违法行为更深刻的规范，违反规范的后果几乎是无穷无尽的可怕。

@chrisbbreuer CC @satofishi

@chrisbbreuer抄送@satofishi

@chrisbbreuer Imperial could be better if they changed the foot length to 29.9792458 cm, so the speed of light would be exactly 1 foot per nanosecond.
Could reduce pound to 403.7 grams to make gravitational constant a round number, but apparently GC is hard to precisely measure for now.

@如果他们把脚的长度改为29.9792458厘米，克里斯·布鲁尔·帝国可能会更好，因此光速将精确到每纳秒1英尺。
可以将磅减少到403.7克，使引力常数成为整数，但显然GC目前很难精确测量。

@pourteaux Neither of the latter have invaded foreign lands recently.

@波尔图最近两人都没有入侵外国领土。