[edited out]
I have looked for a study on the growth effect of the chain with and without and the cost of spam if enabled
https://beincrypto.com/bip-110-ordinals-bitcoin-spam-debate/.
And I can't find shit, all I see if name calling and arguments for the last few years and no-one publishing actual verifiable facts.
The thing about "verifiable facts of the future" is that they don't
yet exist, since they are by definition in the future.
We have a tool for this, you have heard of it, it's called "The Scientific Method".
I am not even going to proclaim that there are any folks who are better at predicting (or preparing for) the future than others
Is that not literally how we measure intelligence? Even Elon Musk said "The
right metric for intelligence is
probably the ability to predict the future".
The "right" metric for measuring intelligence is the ability to think in networked ways, opposed to thinking in linear ways.
When you buy a car, you plan which color, which motor, which mileage, which fuel type etc. and where you need to go to buy it. All those actions get planned in your brain in "networked ways". You make plans to realise the future you want which shows you predicted what you need to do to have such a future. Quite smart there
Not quite the same, these are all parallel thoughts that lead to a defined goal ("car i like").
Networked thinking when planning to buy a car would be looking beyond the sales price and general properties to analyze how the purchase impacts your finances, lifestyle, infrastructure, and the environment over time.
That doesn't include social or emotional intelligence
How smart is angry? Does knowing the etiquette of opening the door for a woman count as intelligent or only if done instinctively?
I really have no idea how anything other than logical intelligence is measured. Every measurement is a logical one, is it not
Angry is smart, but only if applied in a situation where it leads you to a desired result. But, sure, you can tell someone to "fuck off" nicely and politely, if he just wanted to dedicate a nice sucker punch to your head. "Smart" is the common strategy to reaching a goal by investing the least possible effort.
Learned behavior (as in the door-opening-for-woman) most times has a predictable result in the back of your mind, a pattern, as expecting a kind reply, most possibly to be recognized by the woman in a positive way, or if you were taught to do so in that particular situation (aka. manners). This may be a result of social intelligence, stored as a kind of pattern in your mind. But intelligence is about future, less predictable outcomes. You connect results from past experiences that match good enough to fill in the "holes" of a (social) puzzle to gain (social) advantage. In more precise terms, intelligence is your helping hand on the way to knowledge that can be applied further to achieve desired results. Most times you interconnect known patterns to others, to solve problems you haven't solved before, which would again be stored as a pattern in your mind.
A good example for the lack of intelligence is trying the same solution and expecting different outcomes, or the opposite, trying to solve new problems using old solutions. (For example: tariffs).
I don't know how good my explanation is, but it seems too long to me and thus possibly hard to follow, so here are Gemini's results for those two terms (Emotional and Social intelligence):
Social intelligence is our ability to understand and navigate human relations, manage social situations effectively, and connect with others using verbal and non-verbal cues
Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is the ability to perceive, understand, and manage your own emotions as well as the emotions of others.
EDIT: I'm particularly bad in both categories (certified!), but i compensate much in the EQ department using cognitive thinking, and in the case of social intelligence, by using "masking" and "scripting" strategies.
I still wonder why i don't use AI much more for simple, effective explanations instead of writing less focused, more confusing, lengthy constructions of text to explain something.
Nitpicking...
Closing single quote missing from story title (added in red above). Closing quote exists in the
story's source.
Nitpicking?
That's what i'd call a brilliant observer.
I obviously love nitpicking, then.
feb 29 1996
so 30 plus years no smokes.
you guys with your exact dates.
i stopped smoking (vaping) a few years ago.. thats about as close as i can make it.
same with a particular drug that had me back in the day, no particular date of cessation just 50 odd years ago for that one.
basically, as i managed to stop before i die, its a close enough timeframe i reckon
I smoked my last tobacco cigarette on February 26, 1985. I didn't "quit". I simply haven't taken the action of smoking since then.
Quitting isn't an action. Smoking is. Smoking involves obtaining a cigarette, lighting it and inhaling it, all actions.
Quitting simply involves not doing anything. Making a big deal out of quitting is just crybaby behavior.
It's not quitting, it's the beginning of not smoking.
A wise man once said "quitting makes you feel like losing, whereas beginning makes you feel to gain something".
Nah, that was just me, and i wouldn't call myself wise anyway
However, i think i never had serious problems with quitting anything, because i had reasons. A reason is the one thing that keeps you from doing something. Of course, a reason is also the one thing that makes you do something.
EDIT: Thinking that after, most of my motivations are mostly driven by reasons, not anything as much by needs. I guess that's why reasons are quite important to me, generally, so i can overrule the weight of needs vs. reasons in decision more easily. I find many reasons daily which make me neglect my needs, but also my fears. So i am mentally most efficient in critical or challenging situations. Must have saved my life (and also the life of others) a few times.
EDIT2: This. And i can overthink faster than a rabbit can fuck
Poll
