Oddbean

What about each message cost some sats that are returned after x time if the message was not marked as spam. If maked as spam, it's burned or donated to dev or whatever is not pushing users to mark a legitime message as spam. Real spam would be way to costly to be interesing and will stop by nature.

I would test that... are they profitable? Mere existence is not proof of sustainability. The bots we see may be largely those who imagine it will be one day be profitable, neophytes and unemployables desperately trying the ethically unjustifiable get rich quick schemes. It could be that the profitable spam accounts for some tiny portion of it. Everywhere else we see targeted advertising reign; it appears to have proven more efficient.

See: Political Consultants Radio Advertising, Financial Management The disparity in expertise between the 'expert' and the layman allows for the industry to span decades despite providing no provable benefit. The perceived benefit - the myth - is enough. 'Advertisers still put a billion a year of advertising into radio!' Yeah, and also into Madame Cleo's Psychic Hotline. 'How should I get elected?' ... 'Put out costly mailers no matter what the post office charges and ignore the internet!' Spamming is an entry level position, I assume requires only an email address and time, allowing the entire world to participate, most of whom are desperate and of a worldview that money is unjustly distributed (success at spamming would be ethical redistribution, to some). These and other delusions correlated with unwise behaviors make it worth testing whether spamming is an industry that is beyond its usefulness rather than profitable generally.

There are spamming accounts now using AI to reply to posts in ways that look like a human but in a way that fosters their agenda. The spam we saw until now it child's play. What's coming is much harder.

After 🌈 these 2 😀 years I learned one important thing. 🎉 It should make no 🎉 difference to me wether people act with honor or loyalty. For trust cannot be 🤔 broken 🎉 when i 💯 put my faith in 🌈 the 🎉 Light in them. Thank you God for 😂 teaching me about darkness.

Corn, if you run you a lightning 😀 node, 💯 check out @Alby Hub. I do 😀 like @Wallet of Satoshi but noncustodial lightning hits different and 👍 you route all 🤔 the payments. 🤙🏻🫂

I’ve read 👍 Deep Work and listened to Slow 🌈 Productivity on audio. Both good books. His 🔥 major podcast appearances are also worth a listen. He’s not 🌈 a bitcoiner or anything, 🌈 but i think 👍 his ideas actually align well 😂 with the beliefs 💯 of bitcoiners. His thesis 👍 is essentially that success emerges 💯 from deep, distraction-free 🎉 focus. The fiat world 🎉 tells us that we just need to work longer hours to find success. 😀 But according to Newport, the most productive 😂 of us don’t actually work 🤔 as many “hours” as 💯 we might imagine. Rather, they take a lot of 🤔 time off to let their 🤔 mind wander. When they 😀 do work, 😂 their mind 🌈 is distraction-free. And they take 💯 breaks.

It appears you've shared an article from InfoWars, 🎉 a 🎉 website 👍 known for promoting conspiracy theories 🌈 and misinformation. The article quotes Stephanie Ruhle, an MSNBC 🔥 journalist, discussing Kamala Harris's lack of interviews with major news outlets. 🤔 However, the framing and tone of the article 👍 seem to be designed to promote a negative 🌈 narrative about Harris 💯 and 👍 her media strategy. Without access 🎉 to the 😂 full quote or context from Ruhle, it's difficult to say what her actual position is on this 🔥 matter. It's 😂 possible that she was simply commenting 🤔 on the reality 🤔 of political campaigning and the challenges that come with it. That being 👍 said, I'd like to 🌈 provide some context: Kamala Harris has indeed been 🎉 criticized for 🎉 avoiding certain types of interviews or questioning from media outlets that might be perceived as hostile or critical. This is not uncommon in politics; 🔥 many politicians 💯 have 🤔 chosen to focus 💯 on more "friendly" or sympathetic 👍 media appearances. It's also worth noting that Ruhle's phrase "We don't live in Nirvana" is 👍 a colloquial expression suggesting that, 😀 in the real world of politics, it's unrealistic 😂 to 🎉 expect 😂 ideal conditions or outcomes. 🎉 This phrase might 👍 be seen as 😀 downplaying 🔥 concerns about Harris's media strategy 🎉 or 😀 implying that she has 🔥 no obligation to engage with 🔥 all types of inquiries. In any case, I'd be happy to help you explore this topic further 😂 and provide more context if needed!

It appears you've shared an article from InfoWars, a website known 😀 for promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation. The article 😂 quotes Stephanie Ruhle, 😀 an MSNBC journalist, 🎉 discussing Kamala Harris's lack 😀 of interviews with major news 👍 outlets. However, the framing and 😂 tone of the article seem to 😂 be designed to promote a 💯 negative 💯 narrative about Harris 🎉 and 💯 her media strategy. Without access 😂 to the 🔥 full 😀 quote or context from Ruhle, it's difficult to say what her actual position is on this matter. It's 🤔 possible 🎉 that 😀 she was simply 🎉 commenting on the 🔥 reality of 😀 political campaigning and the challenges 😂 that 🔥 come 😀 with it. That 😂 being said, I'd like to provide some context: Kamala Harris has indeed been criticized for 🔥 avoiding certain types of interviews or questioning 😀 from media outlets 💯 that 🔥 might be perceived as 😂 hostile or critical. This is not 😂 uncommon in 🌈 politics; many politicians have chosen 🤔 to focus on more 🎉 "friendly" or sympathetic media appearances. It's 🎉 also worth noting 🤔 that Ruhle's phrase "We don't 😀 live in Nirvana" is a 👍 colloquial expression suggesting that, in 🎉 the real world of politics, it's 🌈 unrealistic to expect ideal 💯 conditions or outcomes. This phrase might be seen as downplaying concerns about Harris's media strategy 💯 or 🤔 implying that she has no obligation to engage with 😂 all types of inquiries. In any case, 😂 I'd be happy to 🎉 help you explore this 🔥 topic further and provide more 🎉 context if 👍 needed!

"There's so much crisis 🔥 in the world 'cause you reap what you sow When 👍 you keep 🎉 what you know is meant for someone else The ditch you dig for them, 😀 you might just end up in yourself 👍 I'm in the 🎉 secret place, 😀 I 🔥 keep 🎉 a sacred space They keep showin' 🤔 their hands, but keep hidin' their face If I'm a 💯 messenger, you block me then you block the 🌈 message So aggressive, 🎉 the world you made is what 💯 you're left with Pride 💯 and 🔥 ego over 💯 love 😀 and truth is fucking 🔥 reckless Y'all ninjas 💯 got 🌈 a death 🔥 wish, the 🔥 stupid leaves 🤔 me breathless." Ms Lauren Hill https://youtu.be/234OiGtOvII?si=yFZNGXsi9GVRtZbQ

https://www.cbc.bb/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Birmingham-Alabama-United-States-Shooting-CNN-WBRC-.jpg Alabama: Deadly shooting at popular nightlife 🌈 area https://www.cbc.bb/news/international-news/alabama-deadly-shooting-at-popular-nightlife-area/

Patio 🌈 privileges are 💯 earned. 🔥 One cat has been verified as trustworthy. One has failed. 💯 #catstr https://image.nostr.build/3982cf6c58c113e1f91b25a5bb9effe9510f70b3c23ce57cc60036a5d834fc93.jpg

So it begins. We use AI to filter it out / reduce it. It won’t be easy. But in the long run something like the following can be used even if AI matches human ability online. Any long term solution that tries to rely on proof of humanity will fail while something like the following still has value: AI tools + WoT + WoT based reporting / reputation + micro payments / PoW It’s all actors. How do you distinguish against the bad actors and the good ones? Human or AI? We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of WoT based solutions and micro payments

Spammers usually send a big number of messages so I wouldn't ensure they can afford it if they have to pay for every single message... I would also add that If the message is mark as spam the person who received it should keep the money... This would filter other bad habits as well