Your work inspires hope! Decentralization of medicine is the way forward. Systematic integrity is a ground-up process, not a top down imposition. Reading Matt Ridley’s “The Evolution of Everything,” one can begin see why centralization (government, banking, education, medicine, etc.) seems so out of place on our planet. The Blockchain solution holds great promise, how can we help?
There are numerous ways to help that include (1) learning to use the tech more, (2) educating (primarily the path I take), (3) investing (either capital or participation), and perhaps others. With respect to (3), it shouldn't be hard to generate a Fitbit clone with data that gets encrypted with a key that allows for control of the data. Some ideas are low hanging fruit and might could be taken up by a small team of college grads.
Thank you. As a practicing MD for 30+ years I will look to expand my small reach in those areas. EMR has not improved overall patient care but instead has become one more barrier between patients and physicians, IMO. Putting patients in control of their data is a must, but the path is complicated.
Of course Web3 does. It is tragic that many associate the growth of Web3 with the corruption displayed by the FTX debacle. Decentralization will march on and it is reason to be optimistic about the world.
Most scientific journals are owned by Elsevier and sub divisions and they can charge quite a bit of money to subscribe to a journal for one year ($500 or more per year) or per article ($20 per article and up). This creates a paywall and limits who can read those studies. But there are some free sources of studies as well.
How does blockchain allow for the building of digital prisons?
That's a strange claim. Today's monetary system is nearly all digital, and results in an open air prison. Adding blockchain helps do one thing, primarily: solve the Byzantine general's problem. This allows for a decentralized/distributed system, unwinding the current circumstances.
In this interview with Maria Zee and Aman Jabbi ( https://twitter.com/noflaps ) (28 years working in Silicon Valley, primarily video and camera technology ), Jabbi says that blockchain linked to digital ID is the digital leash.
1:00:27 - "To summarize, cameras are used to take pictures of your face, videos of your face, and identify you through facial recognition, which is sold to us as security and privacy. Your facial recognition data (key?)links you to a digital ID which is linked to a CBDC which your currency - people have heard the term blockchain, all the data about you is sitting on blockchains in the back, and it's linked to your digital ID. **So literally the blockchain linked to the digital ID is your digital leash.** This is your digital prison. And this will result in the final lockdown of the human race if we allow this to happen."
Is there something these sources aren't getting right about blockchain's key role in digital prisons?
(And while there's so much wrong with the current monetary system, at least we can still buy food and access the internet without being "up to date" on whatever medical experiment they want to insert into us .. )
I understand now. You're saying what I'm saying: that digital ID is the nasty part that allows for surveillance and control. Yes, and this is what I'm trying to help educate people about. But ultimately, that has nothing to do with blockchain. We could just as easily say, Digital ID and red t-shirts can be part of a totalitarian technocracy. And we wouldn't be wrong, but the red t-shirts aren't really a variable with respect to the technocracy.
What's the advantage of publishing scientific work on the blockchain as opposed to something like arXive? As far as I can tell neither of these options would have any kind of centralized gatekeepers, unless there is something I don't understand about arXive.
Something I'd love to see is a way for researchers to create something akin to smart contracts on the blockchain for crowd funding of research. Maybe we could fund all of the studies we'd love to see done related to the vaccine that the centralized institutions won't even consider funding. Maybe we could fund more autopsies on those whose deaths are suspected to be due to the vaccines. Maybe we could fund a full analysis and characterization of all those clots being pulled out of people. And, who knows, maybe we could manage to drive a big ole wedge right through the monolithic medical-industrial complex.
* Permanent (essentially) publication (current histories of chains of links end shorter than you'd think).
* Decentralized business model.
* Decentralized publishing model.
* Prosocial relationship between scientists and reviewers, removing uncooperative game theory without establishing inappropriate cooperation.
The economics of decentralization are night-day changes from the current reality that allows for a single money source to corrupt fully half of science, and erase history.
I'm sure if I spent more time or talk with Kevin and pals this list gets longer.
Bitcoin as a Release Valve is a dangerously corrosive concept. What's so bad about this universal solvent is it destroys everything it touches except virtue. Won't be much left. Might be the rocket fuel that shoots us through the Singularity. This may be why Krugman said he didn't quite understand it.
"Stuff bad. No reason. Vague allusions to futurist words."
The primary difference between Bitcoin and current money...is that Bitcoin is decentralized and coded to a fixed supply (noninflationary). That's it. So dangerous. Much corrosive.
I may have accidentally only emailed this out to subscribers only and don't know how to fix that. Whoops.
Your work inspires hope! Decentralization of medicine is the way forward. Systematic integrity is a ground-up process, not a top down imposition. Reading Matt Ridley’s “The Evolution of Everything,” one can begin see why centralization (government, banking, education, medicine, etc.) seems so out of place on our planet. The Blockchain solution holds great promise, how can we help?
There are numerous ways to help that include (1) learning to use the tech more, (2) educating (primarily the path I take), (3) investing (either capital or participation), and perhaps others. With respect to (3), it shouldn't be hard to generate a Fitbit clone with data that gets encrypted with a key that allows for control of the data. Some ideas are low hanging fruit and might could be taken up by a small team of college grads.
Thank you. As a practicing MD for 30+ years I will look to expand my small reach in those areas. EMR has not improved overall patient care but instead has become one more barrier between patients and physicians, IMO. Putting patients in control of their data is a must, but the path is complicated.
Of course Web3 does. It is tragic that many associate the growth of Web3 with the corruption displayed by the FTX debacle. Decentralization will march on and it is reason to be optimistic about the world.
Most scientific journals are owned by Elsevier and sub divisions and they can charge quite a bit of money to subscribe to a journal for one year ($500 or more per year) or per article ($20 per article and up). This creates a paywall and limits who can read those studies. But there are some free sources of studies as well.
List of free study sites with links to more free study sites. Make science free. https://sciencenews22.substack.com/p/free-study-sites?sd=pf
Or at least make the pricing make sense and for those who do the work to be in control of the process.
In layperson's terms ... while data / blockchain can build digital prisons ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgbNku6aAWY ) , it can also be used to do the opposite?
Huh?
How does blockchain allow for the building of digital prisons?
That's a strange claim. Today's monetary system is nearly all digital, and results in an open air prison. Adding blockchain helps do one thing, primarily: solve the Byzantine general's problem. This allows for a decentralized/distributed system, unwinding the current circumstances.
In this interview with Maria Zee and Aman Jabbi ( https://twitter.com/noflaps ) (28 years working in Silicon Valley, primarily video and camera technology ), Jabbi says that blockchain linked to digital ID is the digital leash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgbNku6aAWY
1:00:27 - "To summarize, cameras are used to take pictures of your face, videos of your face, and identify you through facial recognition, which is sold to us as security and privacy. Your facial recognition data (key?)links you to a digital ID which is linked to a CBDC which your currency - people have heard the term blockchain, all the data about you is sitting on blockchains in the back, and it's linked to your digital ID. **So literally the blockchain linked to the digital ID is your digital leash.** This is your digital prison. And this will result in the final lockdown of the human race if we allow this to happen."
Also ~ https://siliconicarus.org/?s=blockchain || https://wrenchinthegears.com/?s=blockchain
Is there something these sources aren't getting right about blockchain's key role in digital prisons?
(And while there's so much wrong with the current monetary system, at least we can still buy food and access the internet without being "up to date" on whatever medical experiment they want to insert into us .. )
I understand now. You're saying what I'm saying: that digital ID is the nasty part that allows for surveillance and control. Yes, and this is what I'm trying to help educate people about. But ultimately, that has nothing to do with blockchain. We could just as easily say, Digital ID and red t-shirts can be part of a totalitarian technocracy. And we wouldn't be wrong, but the red t-shirts aren't really a variable with respect to the technocracy.
What's the advantage of publishing scientific work on the blockchain as opposed to something like arXive? As far as I can tell neither of these options would have any kind of centralized gatekeepers, unless there is something I don't understand about arXive.
Something I'd love to see is a way for researchers to create something akin to smart contracts on the blockchain for crowd funding of research. Maybe we could fund all of the studies we'd love to see done related to the vaccine that the centralized institutions won't even consider funding. Maybe we could fund more autopsies on those whose deaths are suspected to be due to the vaccines. Maybe we could fund a full analysis and characterization of all those clots being pulled out of people. And, who knows, maybe we could manage to drive a big ole wedge right through the monolithic medical-industrial complex.
* Less ability to hide data later.
** All other forms of transparency.
* Permanent (essentially) publication (current histories of chains of links end shorter than you'd think).
* Decentralized business model.
* Decentralized publishing model.
* Prosocial relationship between scientists and reviewers, removing uncooperative game theory without establishing inappropriate cooperation.
The economics of decentralization are night-day changes from the current reality that allows for a single money source to corrupt fully half of science, and erase history.
I'm sure if I spent more time or talk with Kevin and pals this list gets longer.
Bitcoin as a Release Valve is a dangerously corrosive concept. What's so bad about this universal solvent is it destroys everything it touches except virtue. Won't be much left. Might be the rocket fuel that shoots us through the Singularity. This may be why Krugman said he didn't quite understand it.
"Stuff bad. No reason. Vague allusions to futurist words."
The primary difference between Bitcoin and current money...is that Bitcoin is decentralized and coded to a fixed supply (noninflationary). That's it. So dangerous. Much corrosive.