Show Idle (>14 d.) Chans

← 2018-07-24 | 2018-07-26 →
esthlos: hmm, but to be clear, are you saying that what any person is saying on any ~single~ posting is open to interpretation? because this sounds like hermeneutical approach which lead to the protestant uprising and other bla bla
mircea_popescu: (and by "select group" above i meant "group of threads/"ideal objects sorted in trees" more properly speaking. not groups of people. this sadly isn't at all evident from context, but i caught it on re-read. half the time though, it IS "evident" on the basis of cousins six removed)
mircea_popescu: esthlos there's no other approach available besides interpretation. there's no some way to "read the true reading" in the manner you can ingurgitate an apple.
mircea_popescu: protestants can uprise all they want for all the good it'll do them.
mircea_popescu: !#s think in terms of
mircea_popescu: omfg only a hundred times explicitly ? wink wink drudge drudge.
mircea_popescu: esthlos you ever read the discussion of the dragonfly's brain ?
esthlos: but surely, a dense subset of these sets are uninteresting? there has to be some mechanism to reduce things to some polynomial blowup. or are things really just beyond our grasp?
mircea_popescu: not dense, but very large. the problem with it is that it's not dense.
esthlos: no, though I love watching those bastards zip around and hunt
mircea_popescu: the thing with that is, people obviously don't fly about the room doing 100 body lengths a second while catching bugs and jumping right out of inept frog's mouth all cool as shit.
esthlos: if set of interesting sets is dense in set of all interpretations, how can we proceed?
mircea_popescu: HOWEVER they do exactly the same in this field of representation. MUCH MORE so, exponentially rather than proportionally when compared to the dragonfly, people sort and select through utterly staggering piles of alternative constructs.
esthlos: yes. didn't you just link an uncle al about this?
mircea_popescu: esthlos the problem is that it's neither dense nor sparse. and i dunno how we can proceed. moreover, i suspect goedel says we can not proceed.
mircea_popescu: i thought alf did.
a111: Logged on 2016-06-28 04:35 asciilifeform: << obligatory.
esthlos: that we can assemble a semi-coherent reality is only topped by the existence of a semi-coherent reality
mircea_popescu: rather that we manage to will a coherent approximation of reality into existence. because it's what we're doing, yes, and we need all these complex tools to keep it from becoming either self contradictory, disjointed or else derealized.
esthlos: ^^ ignore
esthlos: not to trivialize, but are you a schopenhauer fan then? or a more broad idealist?
mircea_popescu: im not an idealist at all.
esthlos: ok, seems like I was overindexing on "will"
mircea_popescu: but you do realise that "your wife" is not your wife in the sense your weight is your weight, yes ? you just want her to be -- hopefully both of you.
mircea_popescu: well, so in that sense "will". we agree on things such as "how things should be" or "this is cool" or "this sucks" w/e in the precise manner.
esthlos: gotcha
esthlos: aw shit it's past bedtime. night
jurov: i don't know either, only found this barf in the log:
a111: Logged on 2018-07-22 20:37 asciilifeform: currently i'm curious re why jurov's eater barfed
jurov: Jul 22 19:02:37 2018 (10402) Error verifying message: gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
jurov: gpg: decrypt_message failed: Unknown system error
jurov: also there was expired version of your key, but it was expired since 2016, so that shouldn't be the culprit
asciilifeform: jurov: what do you get if you try and verify by hand with that same gpg ? ( and incidentally, which gpg is it )
jurov: it passed
asciilifeform: interesting
jurov: gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.28
jurov: well, the server is older that the fatwa aginst gpg2
asciilifeform: also why is decrypt_message even called ? there's no encryption in the loop
jurov: will have to check, maybe --verify calls it too
jurov: oh it calls decrypt to compute the checksum of original unescaped text, prolly something left from the ancient spec
asciilifeform: jurov: any gpg bug , even in the sad 2.x , is potentially very interesting. i'd like to learn what happened .
jurov: sure. i couldn't reproduce this
mod6: evenin'
mod6: trinque: Question for ya regarding how jurov can make a payment for The Foundation's hosting fees at Pizarro: Is there a way that I can get an outside BTC address to give him that would go directly to my deedbot wallet? I see that I can do `!!deposit amount`, which might work, but it could be days before a payment is made. Is this a problem? Thoughts?
mod6: ben_vulpes jurov BingoBoingo : I do not believe The Bitcoin Foundation was ever invoiced for colocation services for The Foundation's one machine at Pizarro for the month of June. And thusly, no amount was shown on the Foundation's June 2018 statement.
mod6: The Bitcoin Foundation will make a payment for June, but I need to determine what the price point was for the month of June. I'm going to dig through the logs to see what I can find, but if anyone can help me out in this capacity please let me know. Thank you.
BingoBoingo is indeed alive, been reading apache docs all day
mod6: re price point for June, I can see that this wire was sent on or around June 12th:
a111: Logged on 2018-06-19 16:04 deedbot: Invoiced ben_vulpes 0.40847278 << "wire to the Pizarro DC sent 2018-06-12"
mod6: I have pulled up BTC/USD chart of Bitstamp (no particular reason I picked this exchange) between June 1st and June 30th. I can see that the price was roughly about $6800 per BTC on that day. Unless anyone chimes in very soon about what the actual price point was for the month of June, is anyone opposed to me using this rate?
mod6: *on that day, June 12th
trinque: mod6: that is the way to do that, !!deposit
trinque: and no, the deposit request wont expire or anything, in any amount of time that'd affect you
trinque: (when I start expiring them, will announce)
mod6: thanks trinque.
trinque: but that feature is entirely intended to be used both for sending your BTC and for receiving it from others
mod6: gotcha.
mod6: mircea_popescu: S.NSA was paid up through June 30th, 2018 for dulap's colocation. We can do another quarter (back dated to July 1st) that will carry S.NSA through September 30th, 2018 for a total of: 0.06251472 BTC (0.02083824 BTC/mo). If this is agreeable, let me know, or if you have any questions.
mod6: !Qcalc 0.02083824 * 3
lobbesbot: mod6: 0.06251472
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform do we want quarterly or yearly or what ?
mircea_popescu: mod6 really, don't dig through the logs worth more than what the difference is, you know.
mod6: *nod* was just hoping to find that btc/fiat price. I never did find it. Roughly, I think the price was about $6800 when it would have transpired. But I'll give others a chance to chime on this before I make a June invoice for The Foundation.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: let's take a 1y
mod6: !Qcalc 0.02083824 * 12
lobbesbot: mod6: 0.25005888
mod6: Good with this then through June 30th of 2019? ^
asciilifeform: loox correct
asciilifeform: plox to invoice mircea_popescu ( he is not only chairman but also treasurer )
mod6: Ok, will do.
mircea_popescu: omg no discount!
mod6: ah, fair point, i gotta figure out what the discount would be on a year-contract might be.
mod6: Turns out that there is a mark-up, as opposed to a discount for yearly.
asciilifeform: mod6: that makes 0 sense
mod6: I didn't say it made sense, just that's what was done before.
asciilifeform: mod6: let's do the sensible thing
mod6: What do you find senseable for a discount?
mod6: 10% off?
mod6: !!Qcalc 0.25005888*.9
mod6: !!Qcalc 0.25005888*0.9
mod6: 0.22505299 BTC sound better mircea_popescu ?
mod6: ok :]
mod6: !!invoice mircea_popescu 0.22505299 S.NSA colocation (dulap) through June 2019
← 2018-07-24 | 2018-07-26 →