@ionlazer You don't think laws prohibiting voluntary contracts between employers and employees or landlords and tenants are unlibertarian?

@ionlazer你不认为禁止雇主和雇员或房东和房客之间自愿签订合同的法律是没有法律依据的吗？

There's a lot to be learned from this approach. Commit yourself to a direction that still leaves you lots of freedom to maneuver as you get more data and realize you were wrong about specific things.

从这种方法中可以学到很多东西。当你获得更多的数据并意识到你在某些特定的事情上错了的时候，把自己投入到一个仍然给你很大的操作自由的方向上。

IMO @bryan_caplan does this well. Very passionate libertarian, but he puts his biggest focus on libertarian ideas where he can come up with lots of evidence that they could actually do a lot of good for people. Open borders, housing reform, worrying less about education...

我认为布莱恩·卡普兰做得很好。非常有激情的自由主义者，但他把最大的精力放在自由主义思想上，在那里他可以拿出很多证据，证明他们实际上可以为人们做很多好事。开放边界、住房改革、减少对教育的担忧。。。

Motivation truly is important. You can keep going longer and focus harder on the mission if you can internally narrativize your intellectual life as a glorious search for freedom, enfranchisement of the weak, human progress, etc. Such energies can't be thrown away completely.

动机确实很重要。如果你能在内心将你的思想生活描述为对自由的光荣追求、对弱者的特权、人类进步等，你可以继续走得更远，更加专注于任务。这些能量不能被完全抛弃。

I just remembered a conversation with @AnthonyLeeZhang from pre-covid times on the role of ideology in an intellectual's thinking.
The dichotomy of "idea-driven ideas" vs "data-driven ideas". Framed this way, ideology looks bad, but actually it's not so simple...

我刚刚想起了与《新冠肺炎前时代》的张（AnthonyLeeZhang）的一次对话，讨论了意识形态在知识分子思维中的作用。
“想法驱动的想法”与“数据驱动的想法”的二分法。这样设计，意识形态看起来很糟糕，但实际上并不是那么简单。。。

... because there are other options. A particularly important option is "data-driven choice of idea-driven ideas". Ideology generates hypotheses and provides motivation, but then you check them against reality, and be prepared to dismiss or de-emphasize some as a result.

... 因为还有其他选择。一个特别重要的选择是“数据驱动的想法驱动的选择”。意识形态产生了假设并提供了动机，但随后你将它们与现实对照，并准备好忽略或淡化某些假设。

RT: @scott_lew_is The first law of tokenomics: don't get your tokenomics advice from people who use the word "tokenomics"

转发：@scott\u lew\u是tokenomics的第一定律：不要从使用“tokenomics”这个词的人那里得到你的tokenomics建议

@scott_lew_is The first law of tokenomics: don't get your tokenomics advice from people who use the word "tokenomics"

@scott_lew_是tokenomics的第一定律：不要从使用“tokenomics”这个词的人那里得到你的tokenomics建议

@evabeylin I'm sad that this stuff is getting dug up by media through court records. Revealing details of personal family life should be a personal choice.

@evabeylin我很难过媒体通过法庭记录发现了这件事。透露个人家庭生活的细节应该是个人的选择。

@pourteaux What's wrong with druids? I would love to have cat form and run 30% faster and then be able to pop out and immediately make a healing spell.

@波尔图德鲁伊怎么了？我希望有猫的形态，跑得快30%，然后能够跳出并立即进行治疗。

RT: 📢📢📢 Ethereum Foundation Research AMA is open NOW on Reddit!
#Ethereum #AMA
https://www.reddit.com/r/ether...

转发：📢📢📢 以太坊基金会研究AMA现在在Reddit上开放！
#以太坊#AMA
https://www.reddit.com/r/ether...

@koeppelmann @MeherRoy @drakefjustin @ultrasoundmoney The pattern of using a 6% honesty assumption with a 95% threshold sidechain, with fallback to ethereum if the DA breaks, is definitely a fascinating one, though I worry about the economics of dapps that use it and don't think through the exceptional case

@koeppelmann@MeherRoy@drakefjustin@UltrasonMoney使用6%诚实假设和95%阈值侧链的模式，如果DA中断，则返回以太坊，这无疑是一个有趣的模式，尽管我担心使用它的分布式应用程序的经济性，并且没有考虑例外情况

@koeppelmann @MeherRoy @drakefjustin @ultrasoundmoney The idea is that if you 51% attack a separate DA layer, you can break the assumptions of the L2 that uses it. But if you 51% attack a combined settlement+DA layer, then you can't, because anything with unavailable data will just by definition not be part of the canonical chain

@koeppelmann@MeherRoy@drakefjustin@UltrasonMoney的想法是，如果你51%攻击一个单独的DA层，你可以打破使用它的L2的假设。但是，如果你51%的攻击一个联合营地+DA层，那么你就不能，因为根据定义，任何有不可用数据的东西都不会成为规范链的一部分

@koeppelmann @MeherRoy @drakefjustin @ultrasoundmoney Because only ethereum's DA layer is 100% secure from the point of view of applications inside ethereum, because of tight coupling.
See also:
https://twitter.com/vitalikbut...

@koeppelmann@MeherRoy@drakefjustin@UltrasonMoney，因为从以太坊内部应用程序的角度来看，只有以太坊的DA层是100%安全的，因为紧密耦合。
另请参见：
https://twitter.com/vitalikbut...

@koeppelmann @MeherRoy @drakefjustin @ultrasoundmoney Data availability is not really commoditizable. There are large gains from using the same DA layer as your settlement layer.
But yeah I agree getting more L1 space is very valuable; it's good for L2s too because it lets them settle more frequently.

@koeppelmann@MeherRoy@drakefjustin@UltrasonMoney数据可用性并非真正可商品化。使用与你的营地层相同的DA层有很大的好处。
但是，是的，我同意获得更多的L1空间是非常有价值的；这对L2也有好处，因为它可以让它们更频繁地适应。

@owocki I kinda think that my time series graph of coalitions betraying each other with the 1/3 and 2/3 shifting gets pretty far already.

@owocki我有点认为我的时间序列图中的联盟以1/3和2/3的移位相互背叛已经相当远了。

@artsymonke @MeherRoy @drakefjustin @ultrasoundmoney Does Monke contribute to funding public goods?
If so, yes.

@artsymonke@MeherRoy@drakefjustin@UltrasoundMonke为公共物品提供资金吗？
如果是，是的。

@VeldNdops @owocki It's a formal mathematical model that roughly explains why there can't be an "end of history" and the current order is always vulnerable to being overturned.

@这是一个正式的数学模型，粗略地解释了为什么不可能有“历史的终结”，当前的秩序总是容易被推翻。

@MeherRoy And then there is of course the separate @drakefjustin @ultrasoundmoney line of argument.

@MeherRoy，当然还有另一个@drakefjustin@ultrasoundmoney的论点。

@MeherRoy Right now I'm pretty sure rollups are paying more for eth blockspace than they are capturing with their own token. Though of course the balance could change in a post-4844 and later post-danksharding world.

@MeherRoy现在我很确定，与他们自己的令牌捕获相比，rollups为eth blockspace支付的费用更高。当然，这种平衡可能会在4844年后和后来的戴克沙丁时代发生变化。