Jeff 🇺🇸

Sgt. Dylan Yates dug through thousands of technical documents to repair artillery and radar electronics. He’s now at 17 repairs and $914,076 in cost avoidance. And he’s teaching other Marines how to do it. His initiative is making the whole team better.

This is a solved problem with already existing classics: > Tom Clancy > Michael Crichton > Matt Christopher > Louis L’Amour > JRR Tolkien > Isaac Asimov > Jack Landon Don’t over complicate it. Retvrn.

2. Optimizing for ETH as fee-burning token would demand compromising decentralization and capture resistance If we decide we actually want to optimize ETH for burning fees to justify a present-day ~$270B market cap, then Ethereum would essentially be functioning as a world-scale major corporation - it would be somewhere around L'Oreal (#55). Now, what do *real* major corporations have to do in order to maintain their positions in the long term? 1. They spend. AI estimates L'Oreal as spending ~0.58% of its market cap per year on R&D. This would bankrupt the EF almost immediately. So this would require in-protocol funding to the tune of ~700k ETH per year, with all the political issues that it entails (so validator revenue would get cut by 2/3). And that's just R&D. Corporations have to spend on all kinds of things beyond just cranking out more units of their pre-existing product. 2. They govern. To survive new waves of technology and culture, you have to make highly opinionated choices to go after new markets, make new kinds of products with new features to appeal to people who think in new ways and use the newest technologies. Ethereum would need to have highly interventionist governance, for the long term. Needless to say, both of these are far from conducive to optimizing capture resistance and decentralization. On top of this there is another concern: optimizing for fee burning means optimizing for high gas prices to some degree. This may price out users, including some users who may need privacy and security the most. The price that maximizes price * usage leads to less usage than the price that allows as much usage as possible subject to safe blockchain resource limits.

No, Abdul El-Sayed, Sharia law is not the same as Catholic canon law. The Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate has repeatedly equated Catholic canon law with Sharia, most recently during an exchange with a town hall questioner in Michigan. But they are vastly different. As CatholicVote President & CEO Kelsey Reinhardt explained: "The Code of Canon Law is the internal legal order of the Catholic Church. It governs how the Church administers sacraments, organizes dioceses, and disciplines its own clergy. It makes no claim over the criminal code of any nation." Sharia, by contrast, is an all-encompassing legal order. In the words of CatholicVote President Kelsey Reinhardt: "It reaches into family law, criminal punishment, and the governance of the state. That is why it is written into the constitutions of several nations, and canon law is written into none." Sharia imposes itself on entire societies, not just Muslims—operating through coercive state power. Canon law simply orders the internal life of the Catholic Church. Abdul El-Sayed is equating Sharia law to canon law for one reason: To hide what Sharia really is—a legal system meant to rule everyone in a society. Our freedom is too important to leave to chance. Michigan, you cannot support Abdul El-Sayed.

A bishop w a $50 million media company, White House access & freedom to fly when/wherever he pleases lectures a bishop in a Muslim-majority country. One speaks from a position of power; the other shepherds a vulnerable flock that must live with the consequences. Bravado is cheap.