like so much of it is “this chance was taken and you knew what not to do with it”

I wish I didn’t internally undermine their opinion the rest of the time but I also don’t think what they appreciate me for should be exceptional

without intervention I would’ve been likely brain dead and paralyzed from the neck down by 16. too many act like gods precious messenger on which interventions are divine

worthy effort but ultimately socials anchored to crypto will always end up becoming a sort of linkedin for crypto folks cause nobody else wants it embedded that deep

like in the greenland case it’s laughably obvious cause neither the purchased or purchasers actually want this shit. it’s just some dumbass with power in the middle

to these people ownership is the power to destroy something to purchase more ownership than they had before. it’s not an obligation to see good stewardship of the potential

when he said there’s a “psychological difference” to owning something I knew exactly what he meant

you can do something terrible nobody that honestly cares and is emotionally invested wants to see happen but nobody can technically stop you from doing it

stasis and expansion is only evidence of its rot and corruption

there were significant perspectives shaping what oauth became that would’ve never believed the way atp handles identity could’ve worked

oauth was (not exaggerating) designed around what microsoft teams (“enterprise”) would accept which were pretty married to saml sso stuff and not requiring anyone to understand the concepts too deeply. it has evolved but not much since then

it does give me hope tho that devs hate oauth impl and ux more than they ever hated older identity paradigms

ftr I loathe the oauth style access wrangling and the ux that comes with it. it delivers a barebones well enough to “work” but just like identity “worked” for so long it feeds this idea it’s good enough and doesn’t require a fundamental readdressing