Frederik

Thank you so much for posting this resource. Seriously good stuff! Thanks again.

I've collected 7 resources on the article on my website, two of which are podcasts by Stef and one is the book by the fellow FDR community member Kathryn Beal. Hope it helps!

Thanks a lot for sharing! That sounds like a genuine nightmare. I still remember a couple of years back I talked to a young woman who was born in South Africa and lived there with her family. I said "It's quite dangerous there, isn't it" and she said "Everybody says that, but really it's not bad. For as long as you stay inside when it's dark you're fine." I would imagine not all parts of the country are dangerous. Do you guys live in a dangerous area? Why is criminality so high and who what groups are criminal?

The burden is on you to make a coherent argument, my friend, not on me to ask you questions.

We all know how rare it is to come across healthy individuals, let alone healthy families. I find it very fascinating to see healthy people interacting, especially when that joy of living is shared across the generations. I want to create this kind of positive familial environment, too, and given how hard this is to achieve when coming from a dysfunctional background, it is good to see it existing in another place. Imagine growing up as one of those children! The video below is by the successful YouTuber Wranglerstar, which is a homesteading channel.

I can only concur with how powerful Rich Dad Poor Dad can be. It certainly was for me when I was introduced to it by a friend back in 2014. Through Kiyosaki's book I also discovered Mike Maloney, who's wisdom and education through The Hidden Secrets of Money series has helped to create my financial literacy. To me, the most essential message of the book is to understand that Poor Dads work for money, while Rich Dads let money work for them. Everybody has only 24 hours in the day, thus there is practically no chance of getting rich while working for money on an hourly basis. Investments and businesses, on the other hand, make money while you sleep... So you post a criticism saying the book contains no concrete advice, then warn to be careful with his advice. This doesn't make any sense.

Hey Ethan, I like your website a lot. The design is nice and simple and looks good. I have read a little bit and am wondering, since you state in your "About" page: The article "Experiencing a Myth" concludes with: I don't quite get how these two fit together, like the "Help you think like you" but then "Let me give you advice on how to think and live life." How do these go together? Or am I just misunderstanding something?

It sounds like your interest in FDR is not so negative after all. I got a different impression from your opening post. I think fundamentally happiness comes down to taking action in some way that manifests one's own values. In that, observation itself does not make happy, but it is the change in behavior is what induces happy feelings. To do that which is good for you long-term, much like Drew has outlined. You might feel resistance towards doing whatever that would change something, in which case it would be wise to work that out.

I am very sorry to hear about your distress. I really am! And I believe it would not be entirely unjustified to blame some of that on those who failed their responsibility to help you in the past! I am wondering... if FDR has you just as confused and depressed as years back, what do you believe is the actual purpose of FDR in your personal life? I am sure you recognize this question, as in *Stef's voice* What are the secondary gains of your interest in FDR if it only makes you more miserable?

I personally don't believe Blockchain will survive in the long term because it is very inefficient, slow and not Byzantine proof. I kinda see Blockchain as the kickstarter of distributed ledger technology. In the same way that the first commercial motor vehicle wasn't all too efficient, I believe that the market will gravitate towards the more efficient solution. And that might not be Hashgraph! But it will certainly be something very similar to it, because Hashgraph is so close to 100 % efficiency in terms of traffic needed to form consensus. At the end of the day, with Blockchain you cannot have real currency since it is not practical to wait an hour or more for payment confirmation – Bitcoin is used more as an asset class than anything else. With Blockchain you cannot have games, because it is way too slow for that. I am not sure about auctions, because of the lack of fairness in Blockchain. Plus, the resource usage denies the possibility for Blockchain to become the basis for the Internet of Things, but that and so much more is what we will need in the future.

I haven't had any kids yet, but I can offer some of the reasoning that I would go through. Maybe that is of help to you. I believe that your son, offered the options, will choose – feel – what is best for him and his body. I would make sure he is given the options – the breast first and foremost, secondarily easily digestable foods like fruits and vegetables – and not worry about the details. If he does not want to eat I am sure that this is best for him, just as I may lose appetite when I am sick. My body is the authority on when, what and how much to eat, not me. My baby is the authority on when, what and how much to eat, not me... In the end the weight is just a number. Whether your son is happy and satiated is what matters most, I believe. The rest naturally follows.

Of course the work done in blockchain serves a purpose. That is, it serves a purpose in the consensus algorithm that is proof of work. That does not mean there is no possible other, better way to achieve the same level of security with other consensus algorithms. The 51 % number is a myth, as I have pointed out above – it is 33 %. I see you were quick to post a reply From my understanding, one reason for why it would be so hard to be malicious in Hashgraph is its immediate nature, in that data gets distributed immediately and therefore it would be very hard if not impossible to orchestrate a 33 % percent attack. That, and of course the nature of the Hashgraph, where every data block ("events") is cryptographically linked to all other events that is impossible to change later on just as it is impossible to change a block in Blockchain. One big downside of proof of work is the problem of consolidation, in that nodes will move towards areas where it's cheaper to run a node (cost of electricity), and each will become bigger (economies of scale). When it's very inexpensive to run a full node however, one can expect that nodes will be running everywhere – from every ordinary PC to smartphones. That ensures that the system is backed up by enough trusted entities, plus makes it that much more fair.

I see you have multiple criticisms of UPB, which is fine, of course. I am just wondering since that is the case, how come you are not reading UPB?

Yeah, once one tries to make great arguments oneself I believe it's pretty easy to experience an increase in the amount of admiration for what Stefpai does Mmmh, I may be missing something here, but I am not sure how UPB relies on humans? That would be like saying we cannot ever be sure that two and two apples makes four because we are fallible, but two and two apples in nature will always be four apples, regardless of humans. In the same way, "Theft is moral" is an impossible moral guideline because once theft is seen as moral, one cannot morally "not want to be stolen from" anymore and thus theft ceases to exist. Where is it that you would say man's falliability would make this fact subjective to change and manipulation, if you think that? I'm not trying to be critical here, it's just that UPB is very important to me and if your argument were true, that would pretty much destroy the U in the UPB

Hey, many thanks for posting this! I knew I have played that game as soon as you described the choices one is given. The funny thing is that the first time I played it must have been years ago before I knew about FDR and now that I have played it again it gives me some perspective. In short, playing the game feels a bit like moving on rails because there is only one predefined way in which to attack an argument. When discussing God you cannot question its existence, when talking about the Social Contract you are not able to bring up that children cannot enter contracts, when debating the Sovereign/the State you cannot question its moral nature. I, for once, don't have quite the IQ to quickly discover the sometimes very nuanced hints in which one can attack the argument – which the character does for oneself, in ways that may not even be anticipated (it's a whole dialogue that gets kicked off). So sometimes it came down to guesswork and ending up Game Over a few times. That was frustrating! I remember that from the first time playing. I share your doubts about whether this game has sparked critical thinking among the general populace. It has not been my personal experience. Nothing ever came close to Stef's rational approach and sheer consistency, which of course is absent in almost all other philosophers. Naturally, UPB is not included in the game and if it were, it would be a completely different game. (Spoiler below) It is fascinating to me how philosophy that comes so close to the solution can be so useless after all. My life did not change at all when I played that game for a couple hours, but I knew my life would change completely after watching The Story of Your Enslavement with its 13 minutes in length. Isn't that amazing? It gives me some insight into the almost magical ineffectiveness of academic philosophy. It exists only in order to give people a false sense of purpose and understanding – to turn the smart minds of our time into mere useful idiots at the cost of discrediting the one discipline that has given us the freedom to philosophize in the first place! I would be curious to hear your thoughts, Siegfried!

I guess it makes sense that my post would seem like an ad because I don't explain the technology. In a nutshell, in Hashgraph every node (the client, like your computer running the program) tells random other nodes the data it has (transactions, coordinates, or other data), plus information it randomly received from other nodes. It's called "Gossip protocol" for obvious reasons and is not a new invention. So my node A sends my transaction to another node B, then A and B send to C and D, next round four nodes send out my information – exponentially, so it only takes 20 iterations for 1 million nodes to know my transaction which is the fastest possible way to distribute data in a network. Also, the nodes tell each other what they heard other nodes telling other nodes together with the timestamps, so they "gossip about gossip." The benefit of that gossip about gossip is that every node has all the data every other node has and that very quickly. This also demonstrates the fairness in Hashgraph, because all nodes are equal in power and no single node decides which transactions get to be included. To decide on the correct order of the transactions, a voting system is used. But instead of sending votes all around in the network of who has seen which data when and to "vote for it", we can just forget about that part because everyone already knows how everyone "would" vote if there was a an actual vote – hence it's called "virtual voting" and is, together with the Gossip protocol, what makes Hashgraph incredibly efficient. That's the basic gist of it I'll insert it into the opening post. Now Hashgraph is much safer than Blockchain. While in blockchain there is never perfect certainty in the order of transactions, in Hashgraph there is 100 % certainty and that after a very short amount of time (seconds, not hours). Blockchain is not byzantine fault tolerant despite what people commonly believe. Hashgraph has the highest byzantine fault tolerance there is. The 51 % number you quoted is actually false – every consensus algorithm can not guarantee integrity once more than one third of its participants have evil intentions. Leemon Baired explains why that is right here: CESC2017 - Leemon Baird - Hashgraph Security and Attack Resilience, 19m 54s That should clear it up

Do you have someone in your life who listens to you empathetically? Maybe a therapist or a close friend?

I wanted to introduce you guys to a technology which may change the future of our planet much more than Bitcoin will. It may even make Bitcoin obsolete. If you know how Blockchain works, this topic should interest you. ––––––––––– So... Does expending huge amounts of resources to solve math problems that nobody really cares about make the world a better place? Does "7 transactions a second maximum" sound like future world currency technology? Is it fair that approximately every 10 minutes one single computer likely part of a supercluster wins the lottery and decides which transactions get to be included in the next block? Is waiting for 1 hour for confirmation of a payment that even then isn't 100 % guaranteed sound viable in today's age, let alone in 20 years from now? I'd say no, no, no, and no. But is there an alternative? Yes. It's called Hashgraph. ––––––––––– Hashgraph is a Distributed Ledger Technology much like Blockchain, yet very different – and much better. In a nutshell, in Hashgraph every node (the client, like your computer running the program) tells random other nodes the data it has (transactions, coordinates, or other data), plus information it randomly received from other nodes. It's called "Gossip protocol" for obvious reasons and is not a new invention. So my node A sends my transaction to another node B, then A and B send to C and D, next round four nodes send out my information (exponential, so it only takes 20 iterations for 1 million nodes to know my transaction). Also, the nodes tell each other what they heard other nodes telling other nodes together with the timestamps, so they "gossip about gossip." The benefit of that gossip about gossip is that every node has all the data every other node has. This also demonstrates the fairness in Hashgraph, because all nodes are equal in power and no single node decides which transactions get to be included. To decide on the correct order of the transactions, a voting system is used. But instead of sending votes all around in the network of who has seen which data when and to "vote for it", we can just forget about that part because everyone already knows how everyone "would" vote if there was a an actual vote – hence it's called "virtual voting" and is, together with the Gossip protocol, what makes Hashgraph incredibly efficient. It's extremely efficient and fast, plus fair and secure. In fact, it's much more efficient, faster, fairer and securer than Blockchain! It's a straight upgrade. It was invented 5 years ago by Leemon Baired of http://www.swirlds.com/ and they have only been public about this technology since September 2017. ––––––––––– You want to learn more? See their website (above) or check out the following resources: Hidden Secrets Of Money Episode 8 featuring Bitcoin and Hashgraph (video) Overview of Swirlds Hashgraph (article) How Hashgraph Consensus Works (presentation) Swirds' Leemon Baird Talks Hashgraph (lecture) ––––––––––– It may sound like I'm here to advertise, but I am of course in no way affiliated to them. I just have recently stumbled across Hashgraph in The Hidden Secrets of Money and have been learning much about it. I find Hashgraph fascinating as this seems to solve all the problems that Bitcoin currently has. Most notably the extreme energy expense (between 1/2000th and 1/1200th of world's electricity!) and limited scalability. Maybe you guys find this interesting, too? Have you heard about it before? What are your thoughts? Cheers!

Well, I think Freedomain Radio is an exception in a lot of ways and I am very thankful for that I agree with you and believe that in general, your recommendation is good when it comes to public intellectuals trying to market themselves.

That certainly makes sense! I think Stef isn't the kind of guy that would want to call his show "The Stefan Molyneux Show" and having us being part of the "Stefan Molyneux community". Cult aleeert!! Stefan Molyneux – Founder of "The Stefan Molyneux Podcast" – Sounds weird to me My educated guess is that the main reason he gave this show a different name than his own is his aim to make this show as little about him as possible. He is always reiterating that it's not about him, but about reason and evidence and the truth – as opposed to so many other public figures like Dave Rubin or Ben Shapiro who like to give answers instead of principles and arguments. They don't reason from first principles, and therefore the conversation becomes much more about themselves and their personal "beliefs". And incidentally, their shows are called "The Rubin Report" and "The Ben Shapiro Show"

Well, I think we first have to recognize that there are only so many words in the dictionary itself, right? And the percentage of words which could potentially serve as a brand name is miniscule I would assume. What I mean so say by that is we can't tell from the empiricism of brand names whether companies actually prefer unique words or common words, right? But for example, I find Freedomain Radio a very good name. It's actually describing many qualities of what it is, and I associate.. Free Domain ~ We, the community within this domain, are free, and we share freely. Freedom is important to us. Radio ~ It's kind of a Radio show, which it is. Plus, it doesn't have too many syllables because I find Radio goes off as one (Free-Do-main-Radio), which I think is very important (note how few syllables there are in Coke, Pepsi, Apple, Tesla, Fanta, Ford, Bayer, even Mercedes or Microsoft). Proctor & Gamble on the other hand is too long, which is why they make P&G out of it... I know I am by no means proving anything and in that sense it's a bit ridiculous, because I could just as well choose very long and unfortunate brand names that are still well known... But I just think that these catchy brands have the most potential to become literally branded into the collective unconscious. That being said, I think just as debate.org is a good brand name for that, arguments.com were suiting for this project, too.

Oh, sure. I have not expressed myself very clearly. I meant that a simple noun generally has less potential to become a recognized brand. Successful beverages are not called "Sprinkly" or "Refreshing", but "Coke" and "Pepsi" – invented words. I'm sure you now get what I mean

No, it's not a common noun. For as long as your name is unique, domains will not have to cost you more than 20 bucks. I don't even think it is particularly clever to set up a website without a unique name for reasons of brand recognition. Examples of prices from iPage:

How are .com domains expensive? I bought mine for 5 or 10 bucks I think. I believe it's more about what kind of domain name it is, right? How much have you guys paid?