OK. I think I heard somewhere that you can pay a relatively low fee (only once) to get your content hosted, which seemed a bit fishy to me, which is why I still remember it.
If that only means that I can find someone who hosts a node, and he can promise to host it indefinitely but he can still delete it when he wants, then I feel I have been lied to.
Not unless you pay a service to host on IPFS for you. This thread explains it well: https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/6ja8gf/comment/djcwphp/?context=3
OK. I think I heard somewhere that you can pay a relatively low fee (only once) to get your content hosted, which seemed a bit fishy to me, which is why I still remember it.
Which statement? That BSV nodes don't prune or that IPFS requires you keep your own node online to host data?
Oh, sorry about that ambiguity. I ment to inquire about your statement about IPFS. And btw I thought I could "dump" data on the IPFS and have someone else host them.
Practically speaking, BSV nodes almost all have 100% of data still, no pruning. With IPFS, unless you host files yourself, they will likely be gone if your node is offline.
So this goes against the narrative that has been set up. Do you have some evidence or source for this information?
Btw, if I showed you that in this series, at least one of the "debunks" of "Professor Dave" is merely pretension of debunk, avoiding the testable part, would that be useful to you?
Over the yrs i have tried to eliminate as many enemies or people that would give negative energy towards me...i like to try and keep everyone happy. Keep the energy around me positive.
eliminate enemies.... You are aware that this can... at least be misinterpreted?
Now that you have let me have my way, I feel the need to second your motion not to let this make us into enemies. I suppose you were more graceful in the end. I respect that.
Seems like we are not getting anywhere and wasting each others time, Lets move away from this subject, lets talk BCH
Nah, I think I will not want to open another topic with someone using this style of argumentation. We can finish this one properly, but that's quite enough.
Calm down bro lol, how is it impossible, maybe because its a lie.
Your superior knowledge of my toolbox shows clearly here. It is impossible for all theories in physics, not just this one. You not understanding that means you are a newbie.
In other words, you keep asking me to do the impossible. And on my way to this impossible goal you dream of putting up FE narrative type roadblocks to "get me", who knows what for.
And on top of this, you seem to have ignored or not understood my point that even somewhat wrong theories can be useful tools for many things.
Oh, and since you won't shut up about this, I should be more clear about the scientific toolbox that you supposedly know better than me. You cannot prove a theory to be right.
In other words, you keep asking me to do the impossible. And on my way to this impossible goal you dream of putting up FE narrative type roadblocks to "get me", who knows what for.
Did I not tell you that there are textbooks for this kind of thing? You want me to write a whole new textbook on basic physics in this unfitting 184 chars pr post format just for you?
Oh, and since you won't shut up about this, I should be more clear about the scientific toolbox that you supposedly know better than me. You cannot prove a theory to be right.
it maybe weak proof but its something. Im still waiting on some proof from yourself from the most popular theory that you think is true, the world is a spinning ball.
Did I not tell you that there are textbooks for this kind of thing? You want me to write a whole new textbook on basic physics in this unfitting 184 chars pr post format just for you?
... or there can be other similar issues that make it cheaper in practice. Like what country's airspace you go through, and what cost you need to pay for that.
Not saying there are any such considerations, just that I do not trust that we are necessarily given the whole picture, and that a single pathchoice in any case is weak proof for FE.
2. Supposedly there are permanent jetstreams and so on high in the air (though they may be going the opposite way?). Point is, it could actually be more fuel efficient to go that path
... or there can be other similar issues that make it cheaper in practice. Like what country's airspace you go through, and what cost you need to pay for that.
Maybe I am dumb, the flight trip "sun proof" seemed unconvincing to me, I dunno what I saw of what I should have seen in the two cases. For route, I believe there are 2 main issues.
2. Supposedly there are permanent jetstreams and so on high in the air (though they may be going the opposite way?). Point is, it could actually be more fuel efficient to go that path
1. The curve is not that much longer on a globe. Imagine same trip half around the globe drawn from equator through north pole to equator. Arguably it looks super long, but it is not.
In fact, it is exactly the same length as following equator, even though visually it looks like a huge detour if you draw it on a flat map where equator is a straight line.
Maybe I am dumb, the flight trip "sun proof" seemed unconvincing to me, I dunno what I saw of what I should have seen in the two cases. For route, I believe there are 2 main issues.
1. The curve is not that much longer on a globe. Imagine same trip half around the globe drawn from equator through north pole to equator. Arguably it looks super long, but it is not.
There is a reason his comments are turned off. That is the route one takes on a globe. He cherry picked a route that matches his weird disc earth.
Maybe I am dumb, the flight trip "sun proof" seemed unconvincing to me, I dunno what I saw of what I should have seen in the two cases. For route, I believe there are 2 main issues.