Fix typos

2 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/content/entry/no-kurzgesagt-feeling-free-isnt-good-enough.md b/content/entry/no-kurzgesagt-feeling-free-isnt-good-enough.md
index 73797eb..0c7b719 100644
--- a/content/entry/no-kurzgesagt-feeling-free-isnt-good-enough.md
+++ b/content/entry/no-kurzgesagt-feeling-free-isnt-good-enough.md
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ At any given moment, consciousness is inundated with bits of language, emotions,
 
 The failure to be aware of this arising and passing away of conscious objects as it happens does not make you free. A puppet isn't free just because it doesn't notice its strings most of the time. Not noticing what's going on in your mind may make you *feel* free, but that illusion can be readily pierced at any moment just by paying closer attention to your own mind in the right way (e.g: Vipassana meditation).
 
-Take the optic blind spot as an analogy. Unless you're using a technique to see your blind spot, it gets filled it in and you forget it's there. It certainly doesn't feel like you have a blind spot most of the time, but no one would argue that the illusion that there's no blind spot means that you don't have one. Similarly, the feeling of being free doesn't mean you have some emergent property called free will. It simply means that you aren't noticing how your mind actually works most of the time.
+Take the optic blind spot as an analogy. Unless you're using a technique to see your blind spot, it gets filled in and you forget it's there. It certainly doesn't feel like you have a blind spot most of the time, but no one would argue that the illusion that there's no blind spot means that you don't have one. Similarly, the feeling of being free doesn't mean you have some emergent property called free will. It simply means that you aren't noticing how your mind actually works most of the time.
 
 The fact that one can notice their lack of free will, even at the level of reality emergence says it applies to, seems to pull the rug out from under the hypothesis that free will is an emergent property. And what's more, not only can you notice that you don't have free will subjectively, it's also pretty easy to convince yourself that there's no way you could possibly have it.
 
diff --git a/content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md b/content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md
index bc2830a..0947e74 100644
--- a/content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md
+++ b/content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ ots verify -d "$(git -C journal show-ref --hash signify-signature-10)" journal/s
 
 ## Critiquing My Last Timestamping Entry
 
-Now I first had this idea back in November of 2021 and wrote an entry about it titled "[future-proof digital timestamping](/2021/11/13/future-proof-digital-timestamping/ "Future-Proof Digital Timestamping")". There are a number of issues with that entry and I could spend time nitpicking it, but it's primary deficiency is that the idea of timestamp chaining via successor ledgers is erroneous.
+Now I first had this idea back in November of 2021 and wrote an entry about it titled "[future-proof digital timestamping](/2021/11/13/future-proof-digital-timestamping/ "Future-Proof Digital Timestamping")". There are a number of issues with that entry and I could spend time nitpicking it, but its primary deficiency is that the idea of timestamp chaining via successor ledgers is erroneous.
 
 Timestamp chaining could perhaps provide stronger assurance of the legitimacy of the timestamps (due to the successive blockchains having the largest amount of cumulative work), but the gains in assurance would only be very marginal at best, it's all predicated on Bitcoin having endless successors that also rely on energy-intensive proof-of-work, and there would have to be software supporting such a scheme. In my estimation, that's all highly unlikely.