pull down to refresh
It adds a ton.
I get the impression you have more to share. Let's play out a hypothetical situation.
A person who is deeply entrenched in the matrix shows a video, or reads a tweet, from a politician that has enraged them. They go off on a tangent about how dangerous a political party has become (the usual stuff we hear from those that "follow" politics).
What are you saying to this person? Pretend they will actually listen to you for more than 3 seconds without interrupting.
Appreciate the feedback. I wanted to keep the post short and to the point, so not surprised to hear this.
I would push back a little by saying I do not think most people agree. From what I see on social media, most people consume media with very little consideration of where it comes from and what agenda is behind it.
To be honest, hashrate varies no much around these sites, its not really a metric we discuss. Last time I asked, if I remember correctly, the site was running 7 TH/s.
The metric we use daily are watts. That ranges anywhere between 50 to 300 MW on a site.
Big farms are using pools, and which pool they use is publicly available information.
Yeah, farms have their own nodes. The entire farm is run through a central server rack that broadcast the hashrate to the pool. Super complex, but for us nerds, insanely cool.
We sign NDAs with the companies, no pictures allowed. They hire media professionals so they can review what they captured for approval.
By contractor, I mean I am brought on as a 1099 employee rather than W2. I dont work directly for the company running the farm, but there are times when they need extra hands to help with deployments or general upkeep around the site.
Everywhere. Northern, southern, central. They are all over the place. I do not work directly for a farm, so I cannot offer tours. We see media guys all the time, so tours arent out of the question, just shoot your shot and reach out!
Most are grid tied, leveraging curtailment. Have been on a couple that bought surrounding wind turbines that power the farm.
TL;DR
The essay introduces the concept of "metadeception"—a structured, multi-layered form of deception that obscures its own existence—by drawing parallels between mentalists and politicians. Unlike a simple lie, metadeception builds psychological layers, each supported by the previous one, to create a seamless narrative that captures the audience's identity and makes them feel like active participants rather than passive recipients of deception. Using examples like mentalist Lior Suchard's seemingly impossible "coincidence" trick, the piece demonstrates how pre-show work, controlled props, psychological framing, and editing combine to make the audience believe they are witnessing something spontaneous while every step has been carefully orchestrated.
The essay then applies this framework to political tactics, arguing that politicians exploit national traumas—such as 9/11, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2008 financial crisis—as the foundational layer of fear that makes the public receptive to subsequent narratives. On top of this trauma, politicians layer secondary threats and then present sweeping policy solutions (the Patriot Act, vaccine mandates, bank bailouts) as the only reasonable conclusion. Additional strategies examined include gaslighting through selective memory, where inconvenient past statements are simply ignored, and the divide-and-conquer approach of creating opposing partisan realities that keep voters emotionally invested in fighting the "other side" rather than questioning the larger system.
The piece concludes that structure and storytelling are essential to effective metadeception. A compelling story that speaks to a person's identity will be believed and defended even in the face of contradictory evidence, as seen in comment sections defending a magician's trick or voters defending politicians who contradict themselves. The author modifies the definition of metadeception to include "structured" as a key element, emphasizing that without order and intentional layering, lies fail to persuade. The essay positions itself as the first part of a larger exploration into the tools and techniques of deception, distinguishing between the mentalist's goal of making reality seem impossible and the politician's goal of convincing the public that conditions would be worse without them.
I acknowledged there is no known way to un-hash data. Im suggesting its possible, or they have figured a way to hash using a key, giving them the ability to un-hash.
Its totally theoretical, and in my opinion, would explain the massive amounts of money going into AI and mining infastructure/development.
The only story I know about China mining in the US was in Wyoming a Chinese owned farm was raising concerns because it was next to an Air Force base.
There is definitely a race to develop a digital payment system, and I know that the US is on a path to a stablecoin for their system. I have not looked into what has been going on in China with their payments system, but I realize now that I probably should have.
I agree with you that China should consider Bitcoin as a neutral settlement system. I think every country should consider it.
TL;DRTL;DR
The Core Concept: Hiding the BoundariesThe Core Concept: Hiding the Boundaries
The "boundary" is the limit of what the audience perceives as the "show" or the "event." To deceive effectively, the performer must make the audience believe the entire story is happening right in front of them, while the actual work happens outside those lines.
Mentalism vs. PoliticsMentalism vs. Politics
The paper compares the methods of mentalist Oz Pearlman and the documentary Metadeception by Stevie Baskin to political maneuvers:
Key Techniques Highlighted:Key Techniques Highlighted:
The Updated Rules of Metadeception:The Updated Rules of Metadeception:
The author refines the framework for the third time:
The Final Takeaway: While a mentalist’s deception ends when the curtain falls, a politician’s metadeception is a continuous loop with no definitive start or finish, intended to make the public's perceived reality dependent on the politician's presence.