Only if I disable my spam filter. Then yes I see lots of impersonations with off-topic junk.

I prefer if the relays do spam filtering, but gossip does it pretty well now even if they don't.

Unfortunately Amethyst has become unusable for me now. 

 I was thinking the same thing. In fact instead of what I was planning to work on next, I'm going to build the moderation tool website for chorus.

Back in June I did some work with fiatjaf on NIP-86 https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1325 to create a uniform interface between relays and management software.  And chorus supports it on the backend (at least partially).  But I'm unaware if anybody has built a NIP-86 front-end web tool designed to moderate relay content yet (showing a queue, 1984 reports, detecting impersonation, etc, etc).  So tomorrow I'm going to write some VueJS, something I haven't done for awhile.  But I can already tell it is going to be a big project in its own right and so many other nostr devs... someone must already be onto this, right?  Do you know of any?   A fuck it, I'll just do it my way anyways.  I've never been cured of not-invented-here-syndrome. 

 te ste ste ste st 

 I wonder who it could be 🤔 

 Here is what my example spam filter looks like now.  I will be adding hashtag filtering at some point too, e.g. "If Mike Dilger and tagged with Israel or Politics, deny the event".

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikedilger/gossip/master/filter.rhai.example 

 The best parts are not labelled 

 Wasted in a soup.  Use a spoon. 

 They consider him a threat to their democracy. 

 The other solution is to let relays filter spam

1) Only use relays that have some kind of spam protection that works
2) Turn on your setting Content > Spam Settings > Avoid spam from unsafe relays (SpamSafe)
3) For your relays, flip on the SpamSafe switch, but leave it off for other relays. 

 When you copy filter.rhai.example, rename it to "filter.rhai" 

 I suppose we could background task those.  I'll open an issue on github. 

 I agree. After people adjust, the end result will be that they don't trust things as much.  Which is better. 

 We should price bitcoin in boxes of milk.  Is bitcoin up or down (compared to boxes of milk in Haiti)? 

 Censor that cartoon! 

 I feel like that has already happened....   oh I think it was a laptop 

 cute 

 US Department of State announced on September 13, 2024:  Alerting the World to RT's Global Covert Activities

"Today, the United States is designating three entities and two individuals for their connection to Russia's destabilizing actions abroad. According to new information, much of which originates from employees of Russian state-funded RT (formerly "Russia Today"), we now know that RT moved beyond being simply a media outlet and has been an entity with cyber capabilities. It is also engaged in information operations, covert influence, and military procurement. These operations are targeting countries around the world, including in Europe, Africa, and North and South America. The United States supports the free flow of information.  We are not taking action against these entities and individuals for the content of their reporting, or even the disinformation they create and spread publicly. We are taking action against them for their covert influence activities. Convert influence activities are not journalism. The United States will always stand for freedom of expression, including for those with whom we disagree. We encourage dissent, open debate, and free discourse. But we will not stand for attempts by state actors to carry out covert activities with the goal of hijacking that discourse."


Even if RT is hacking people's computers with one hand and publishing news with the other, the news they publish is still speech/discourse.

Do you think they will ever explain what they mean by "covert influence activites"?  How can something influence me if it isn't speech/discourse, which we all agree must be free?

And if the covert nature is the problem, then tell us what the f*** you mean! 

 https://rumble.com/v5exrqd-u.s.-pushes-to-censor-russian-media-worldwide-while-funding-own-propaganda-.html?e9s=src_v1_mfp 

 Your sarcasm knows no ends.

I like to have a unique take. I'm gonna disagree with everyone on something. 

 Ben Goldacre wrote a few books on many ways the science goes wrong... Bad Science and Bad Pharma. And he did not cover it all.

Keep thinking outside the box. 

 #Ailurophobia 

 I'm filtering him out with 'filter.rhai'.  The updated example on gossip unstable works well (although i don't filter naughty words or mute people, those were just examples). 

 You can type them in your posts and they will be parsed and made into t tags in the event.

But you can't build a feed off of them currently. 

 Any viable X+L=J theory will need to explain not only why the Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy, but also why it was so important to Ned to protect the secret parentage of Jon Snow.

This is hard to do, which is why I think most people accept R+L=J and discount the fact that Jon doesn't have Targaryen traits.  They point to things like Baratheon hair being dominant in Cersei and Jaime's children, and so maybe Stark traits dominate Targaryen traits.

So it is a real challenge, and maybe it is a dead-end, but surely worth considering. 

 
Yeah, if you go to the westeros.org wiki their defense of R+L=J https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jon_Snow/Theories on this point is that many Targaryans don't have Valyrian traits.  However all those references are from outside of the book series (A World of Ice And Fire, Fire & Blood, The Rogue Prince, etc) which is not very satisfying.  GRRM should have put the evidence into ASOIAF itself.

I've watched a lot of AltShiftX and various other stuff, not sure I've seen Preston Jacobs. I'll go watch a few. 

 Ok I just watched his whole series on the page of lies (9 videos, the last being hilarious).

I am convinced by it.  And I think you are right, I think blood will matter and parentage will not.

And given that Daenerys is of Dragonstone, not Targaryen, why shouldn't Jon Snow be of the North and also not Targaryen?

They both have the magic of their region in them.  And together they are ice and fire.

But neither of them is the rightful heir (if Jon's father is not Rhaegar, or if Young Griff is real)... that all these games of thrones are just the folly of man, blinding himself to what is real, what really matters (character, genetics), versus what is formally declared to matter (next in line to the throne based on dumb rules).

Thanks for the pointer, and I think this fits well with my preferred X+L=J theory. 

 Yeah me too, just a thread. 

 Lilac eyes. Lean face. Dragon rider. Those are all Valyrian traits.  Jon Snow has none.

The much younger Rhaenys died in the sack on kings landing at 3.  She looked like a Martell.

There is enough evidence of Valeryan traits being recessive to keep alive the theory that maybe Jon Snow's father is Rhaegar.  I think GRRM might not even know - he seems to like to leave lots of things open ended. 

 🫂 

 Mostly web based, for practical reasons.

 Will has notedeck I think is egui 

 Out of curiousity, how does strfry balance the splitting of ranges versus the number of round trips?  Personally I think waiting for "yet another round trip" is pretty bad compared to sending let's say 2x the amount of data. 

 This note is general, not directly in response to you, but triggered by your response.

I feel like the lone voice in a storm of people telling me that I am wrong. Until somebody demonstrates to my satisfaction that I am wrong, I will continue believing that it is the storm of people who are wrong, and I will continue saying what I believe.  I'm not moved by peer pressure.  In fact I think exactly 0 people who I have interacted with agree with me (I could be wrong about that but I don't recall anyone being in clear agreement). I spent a lot of time on this issue because I keep hearing things that wildly contradict mountains of evidence that I've seen and in part studied for decades, much by people I either know or feel like I know. So you'll forgive me if I think that it is all of you anti-seed-oil-carnivore crowd that are the ones suckered into a narrative, rather than me being suckered into a mainstream narrative. That is how it feels from where I sit.  This note offers no evidence or proof of anything, and nobody should change their minds based on this note or how I feel. This is just me expressing how it feels to be the only one, and yet still pretty darn certain of something. It doesn't feel good. That is why I don't want to argue the issue. And that is why people getting angry at my notes and expressing a desire to half-unfollow me really disturbs me.... you think YOU are bothered by MY notes?! C'mon on. I get your views in my face over and over from hundreds of accounts. I am just a whisper in reply. If you can't handle a lone whisper, maybe you should leave nostr for something more sheltered.  I just want to drop a truth bomb every now and then that makes people stop and think... even if I'm wrong, making you stop and think is I think a valuable service. 

 The current pop-sci theory is that arachadonic acid (an omega-6 fatty acid common in seed oils and which your body produces from linoleic acid, another omega-6 fatty acid in very very high concentrations in seed oil) is pro-inflammatory.  In my view, while this is not strictly wrong, it is misunderstood and people draw incorrect conclusions from this.

The takeaway I would suggest is that you cannot possibly know and acount for all of the psychological processes involved in anything.  Looking at one physiological process means nothing in a complex system like a human. Drawing some conclusion that "seed oils are inflammatory so you should avoid them" based on this fact in isolation is just folly.  To know the truth you have to expose a lot of these complex systems to a lot of seed oils.... and that has been done.  And nearly all of these studies show high seed-oil intake leading to longer lives, less heart dieases, less diabetes, and numerous other positive health outcomes.

And no, I don't work for big-canola. 

 s/psychological/physiological/ 

 I get that. A lot of mainstream things that turn out to be wrong are indeed self-reinforcing and circular and we only see it after we wake up from the delusion.  I think some aspects of climate science suffer from that (but not all of climate science).

I guess for me the pendulum swung anti-mainstream as far as it could swing, and now it is swinging back with less force and I'm correcting for over-correcting on some narrowly focused issues.

I still think science is deeply corrupted and biased. But also that you can get some signal out of it.

What is the Trinity? 

 I recommend avoiding potato chips whether they give you migraines or not. 😂

And there are lots of food sensitivies.  You just have to figure out what works for you.  I don't think medical science can tell you.  I cannot handle whole wheat - my gut dumps itself... but I can have white bread no problem so it's not a gluten thing.  In any case I gave up wheat for 3 weeks and my IBS is gone.  I've had a full week of amazing poops.  So I am definitely sensitive to wheat.  For some people it is FODMAPS but on me they make no difference.  Cabbage, beans, I handle these just fine.

I'm not even anti-Keto.  I think a 100% sardine diet is near ideal. 

 If people are associating seed oils with fried foods, potato chips, other fast foods, etc... then yes, get rid of that stuff.  But it's not IMHO the seed oil itself, it is how that oil is used, brought far above 200C causing it to partially transform into trans-fats, being put in contact with starches which then create acrylamide, etc.  Deep fried is deadly.

But if you put seed oil on a salad, or eat sunflower seeds, or even saute with a seed oil (saute stays below boiling), IMHO they are fine (and we can disagree, I'm fine with disagreement).

Anyhow, maybe that distinction makes a difference. 

 Good point. From that link: "If you have a condition that causes chronic inflammation, it may ease some of your symptoms." I think I said something like that.  Their list autoimmune diseases and inflammatory bowel disease -- I also listed both of those in my note. That page is far more complete.

It happens to be that most anti-inflammatory foods are associated with preventing chronic diseases. But it isn't clear that this is the mechanism. What we know is what they say in their Takeaway section "there’s some evidence it may lessen symptoms caused by conditions such as arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease."

My point was really that people shouldn't demonize a food otherwise known to be healthy just because it happens to be pro-inflammatory.  That this pro/anti inflammatory thing has been taken too far IMHO. 

 I think the hypothesis that these "bad foods" cause inflammation is a good one.  But there are counter examples where pro-inflammatory foods are known to be long-term healthy.  Unfortunately humans are just way too complex to get good clear answers on sweeping generalizations like this. 

 Interesting list.  My list is far too boring to compare to that one:  tobacco products, hydrogenated oils, deep fried foods, high sugar foods, low fibre foods (except meats), alcoholic drink > 15%.  Oh wait, I don't have kids so I don't have a list. 

 Ok I have to ask about reverse-osmosis water.... or am I opening Pandora's box?  My understanding is that a membrane with tiny holes only allows water to pass through and so on one side you get pure water. 

 I didn't know that was done. 

 You mentioned anti-fungals and anti-yeasts. You should add anti-biotics.

Here is a bacterium 70% of Americans don't have anymore, probably due to antibiotic use, which degrades oxalates and prevents kidney stones: Oxalobacter formigenes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO1Ir0JJ7as

Who knows how many other good bacteria we have been slaughtering in order to wipe out Hamas... *ahem* I mean...  

 You see into my soul 

 Yes it can. High sugar can glycate the glycocalyx making cells be recognised as foreign thus inflammation. For example.

And in modern times many of us have chronic inflammation.

But I'd love if we found and focused on the injury/insult causing the inflammation rather than our bodies natural reaction to that injury. 

 Clear buy signal 

 I'll do that when I'm next awake. Zzzz 

 You have my condolences. 

 Swedish fire steel (ferro rods) are incredible tools. Every emergency kit needs them.  Every car, every truck, every boat.  The don't expire and are nearly impossible to use up, and they make starting a fire super easy. 

 Cockatoo Spaniel? 

 I grew up with a Labrador retriever. Fat and desperately hungry. That dog would eat the food before you could even get it into the bowl. 

 what luck! 

 It seemed to me impossible to verify with just the direct line to the root of hashes. And so it is.  Also sources kept saying H(AB) which I was pretty sure is wrong but I wanted to make sure I wasn't the one wrong. It is H(H(A)||H(B)) 

 I can't find the event you are replying to, so I will answer in general.

No I did not think about that.  If you enter the wrong password the decryption will fail, it won't give a decoy nsec. 

 It was off-putting. I'd avoid it. I won't be reading Niall's now that I know it is the same kind of rubbish. 

 This is what I wrote (and didn't previously publish) about that:

IS DARRYL COOPER A HISTORIAN?

Michael Shermer ASSERTS that Darryl Cooper is a pseudo-historian

	"...with pseudo-historian Darryl Cooper...  even though I'm a PhD historian and I work and write regularly in the profession, I've never heard of Darryl Cooper."
	-Michael Shermer

This actually appears to be quite dishonest to me. Michael Shermer is a science historian. But the area of history where he disagrees with Darryl Cooper is that of World War II, which is not an area of history that Michael Shermer is an expert in.

But more fundamentally, Michael Shermer's apparent definition of a historian is tied up in... you guessed it, institutionalism.  Apparently Darryl Cooper can't be a real historian if he isn't known as such in institutional circles.

I vehemenetly disagree with this approach. A historian is any person who studies history. It does not require somebody to work within societal institutions. Darryl Cooper may or may not be wrong, but because he studied source material and came to a conclusion and wrote about it, and further because he also made that study a core part of his profession (as a podcaster about history), that makes him a bona fide historian, not a pseudo historian.

Darryl Cooper claims he has read 80 books, parts of another 100, and 1200-1300 academic papers and journals on the history of Israel prior to 1948. I can't tell if he is exaggerating, but that is enough to qualify anybody as a real historian. From this he output 26 hours of podcast. It has taken him many years to produce the few podcasts that he has produced. The Martyr Made podcasts are very deeply researched.

He has written no books, but books are simply not his medium.

I conclude that Darryl Cooper is a historian.