@AnthonyLeeZhang Now if we're pre-emptively talking about how to govern Mars, that's a discussion worth having, though I do have an instinct that even there selling the entire flow today would be a bad idea (for reasons going even beyond "Harberger taxes can improve market efficiency" stuff).

@如果我们现在先发制人地谈论如何治理火星，这是一个值得讨论的话题，尽管我有一种直觉，即即使在今天出售整个流程也是一个坏主意（原因甚至超出了“哈伯格税可以提高市场效率”的东西）。

@AnthonyLeeZhang But Georgism is being advocated not for blank-slate countries, but for changing how taxes work in existing countries. So "just sell the land and put the proceeds into an SWF" in today's reality would imply confiscation on a level that seems highly authoritarian and unrealistic.

@但是，乔治主义并不是为那些一无是处的国家而倡导的，而是为了改变现有国家的税收工作方式。因此，在今天的现实中，“只需出售土地并将收益投入主权财富基金”就意味着没收在某种程度上似乎是高度威权和不现实的。

@panchromaticity @pataguccigoon @tszzl "tuxedo" means a Linux penguin suit, right?

@全色@pataguccigoon@tszzl“tuxedo”是指Linux企鹅套装，对吗？

@SamoBurja For naming sports stadiums after your cryptocurrency, clearly.

@很明显，SamoBurja用你的加密货币命名体育场。

An excellent articulation of what Virgil stands for. Yes he does have an ideology, and it's a beautiful one that I've learned a lot from. https://twitter.com/ameensol/s...

维吉尔所代表的完美表达。是的，他确实有一种意识形态，这是一种美丽的意识形态，我从中学到了很多。https://twitter.com/ameensol/s...

@realLedgerwatch @ethereumdegen @josephdelong Is there any value in optimizing snappy vs packing vs other packing when per-byte data processing time is dominated by Merkle-hashing anyway?

@realLedgerwatch@ethereumdegen@josephdelong当每个字节的数据处理时间都由Merkle哈希控制时，优化snappy、打包和其他打包有什么价值吗？

@feministPLT @zkproofs @Zac_Aztec @izmeckler @EliBenSasson @AnnaRRose @__zkhack__ Agree with this. Recent advances have made zk tech not only more practical, but also easier to understand. Still hard, but reachable for way more people.

@女权主义者同意这一点。最近的进步使zk技术不仅更加实用，而且更容易理解。仍然很难，但更多的人可以接触到。

@MacaesBruno I don't think it's even true that Putin winning would make the world more multipolar. The countries putting the most effort into defending 🇺🇦 are 🇵🇱🇸🇰🇨🇿🇪🇪🇱🇹🇱🇻, not 🇺🇸. Eastern Europe is acting as an independent pole already, and it would emerge stronger if 🇺🇦 survives+prospers.

@我甚至不认为普京获胜会让世界变得更加多极。投入最大精力进行防御的国家🇺🇦 是🇵🇱🇸🇰🇨🇿🇪🇪🇱🇹🇱🇻, 不🇺🇸. 东欧已经成为一个独立的极，如果🇺🇦 生存+繁荣。

@kelvinfichter Multidimensional gas costs have been proposed, though there are challenges. See:
https://ethresear.ch/t/multidi...

@虽然存在挑战，但已经提出了开尔文菲希特多维天然气成本。见：
https://ethresear.ch/t/multidi...

@zengjiajun_eth At this point I am more worried about attacks on the network layer than on other parts of the protocol.

@曾家俊：在这一点上，我更担心网络层的攻击，而不是协议的其他部分。

@liamzebedee I did make a proposal for such a thing!
https://github.com/ethereum/EI...

@liamzebedee我确实为这样的事提出了建议！
https://github.com/ethereum/EI...

@polymutex After danksharding, I would say there isn't really a concept of discrete "shards" at all. Sharding is more fluid/continuous than discrete.

@在danksharding之后，我会说实际上根本没有离散“碎片”的概念。切分比离散更具流动性/连续性。

@thefaketomato They do, see: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS...
Though we could do more to make it mandatory

@他们所做的事情，请参见：https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS...
尽管我们可以做更多的事情来强制执行

@polymutex > The 32ETH/validator requirement
https://github.com/ethereum/an...
> The validator queue delay parameters
CHURN_LIMIT_QUOTIENT section in https://github.com/ethereum/an...
Highly recommend the entire doc!

@polymutex>；32ETH/验证器要求
https://github.com/ethereum/an...
>；验证程序队列延迟参数
中的搅动限制商部分https://github.com/ethereum/an...
强烈推荐整个医生！

Real life is similar, except (i) the "perfect-play" strategy is even more obviously intractable (you have to simulate the universe), and (ii) even the goals are less well-defined.

现实生活是类似的，除了（i）“完美游戏”策略更明显难以处理（你必须模拟宇宙），以及（ii）甚至目标也不太明确。

You may even learn to avoid an entire list of specific biases that you know about, but there will always be *some way* to describe how your algorithm diverges from the perfect strategy that is forever out of reach to us mere polynomial-time mortals.

你甚至可以学会避免你所知道的所有特定偏见，但总会有一些方法来描述你的算法如何偏离完美的策略，而完美的策略对我们这些仅仅是多项式时间的凡人来说永远是遥不可及的。

You can't just keep telling a player to correct for biases and eventually end up with "as close as you can get to perfect play". At some point, you have to actually add content and depth to the strategy. And that content and depth will inevitably involve opinionated choices.

你不能一直告诉玩家纠正偏见，最终以“尽可能接近完美发挥”告终。在某种程度上，你必须为策略添加内容和深度。而这种内容和深度不可避免地会涉及固执己见的选择。

Sure, you can say "Alice overvalues material relative to position", "Bob cares too much about castling", etc. But you also have to talk about the *content* in the player's algorithm.

当然，你可以说“Alice高估了材料相对于位置的价值”，“Bob太在乎投掷”，等等。但你也必须谈论玩家算法中的*内容*。

Because we don't have the computational power to do perfect play, that algorithm will inevitably involve simplifications of the world, and opinionated choices of what intermediate abstractions to reason about.

因为我们没有足够的计算能力来完成完美的游戏，这种算法将不可避免地涉及世界的简化，以及对中间抽象的推理方式的固执己见的选择。

If we had an infinitely-powerful supercomputer, we actually could search through all ~10^120 possibilities down the game tree and give a theoretically optimal move.
But in reality we don't have anything close to such capabilities. So what can we do?

如果我们有一台功能无限强大的超级计算机，我们实际上可以在游戏树下搜索所有10^120种可能性，并给出一个理论上最优的移动。
但在现实中，我们没有任何类似的能力。那我们该怎么办？