@ 957df479:13e9e08e

LiaScript Course

Course Main Title

This is your course initialization stub.

Please see the Docs to find out what is possible in LiaScript.

If you want to use instant help in your Atom IDE, please type lia to see all available shortcuts.

Markdown

You can use common Markdown syntax to create your course, such as:

1. Lists

2. ordered or

3. unordered

4. ones ...

| Header 1 | Header 2 | | :--------- | :--------- | | Item 1 | Item 2 |

Images:

Extensions

 --{{0}}--

But you can also include other features such as spoken text.

  --{{1}}--

Insert any kind of audio file:

   {{1}}

?audio

 --{{2}}--

Even videos or change the language completely.

   {{2-3}}

!?video

  --{{3 Russian Female}}--

Первоначально создан в 2004 году Джоном Грубером (англ. John Gruber) и Аароном Шварцем. Многие идеи языка были позаимствованы из существующих соглашений по разметке текста в электронных письмах...

{{3}}

Type "voice" to see a list of all available languages.

Styling

The whole text-block should appear in purple color and with a wobbling effect. Which is a bad example, please use it with caution ... ~~ only this is red ;-) ~~

Charts

Use ASCII-Art to draw diagrams:

                                Multiline
1.9 |    DOTS
    |                 ***
  y |               *     *
  - | r r r r r r r*r r r r*r r r r r r r
  a |             *         *
  x |            *           *
  i | B B B B B * B B B B B B * B B B B B
  s |         *                 *
    | *  * *                       * *  *
 -1 +------------------------------------
    0              x-axis               1

Quizzes

A Textquiz

What did the fish say when he hit a concrete wall?

[[dam]]

Multiple Choice

Just add as many points as you wish:

[[X]] Only the **X** marks the correct point.
[[ ]] Empty ones are wrong.
[[X]] ...

Single Choice

Just add as many points as you wish:

[( )] ...
[(X)] <-- Only the **X** is allowed.
[( )] ...

Executable Code

A drawing example, for demonstrating that any JavaScript library can be used, also for drawing.

```javascript // Initialize a Line chart in the container with the ID chart1 new Chartist.Line('#chart1', { labels: [1, 2, 3, 4], series: [[100, 120, 180, 200]] });

// Initialize a Line chart in the container with the ID chart2 new Chartist.Bar('#chart2', { labels: [1, 2, 3, 4], series: [[5, 2, 8, 3]] }); ```

Projects

You can make your code executable and define projects:

``` js -EvalScript.js let who = data.first_name + " " + data.last_name;

if(data.online) { who + " is online"; } else { who + " is NOT online"; } json +Data.json { "first_name" : "Sammy", "last_name" : "Shark", "online" : true } ```

More

Find out what you can even do more with quizzes:

https://liascript.github.io/course/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/liaScript/docs/master/README.md

@ 79dff8f8:946764e3

Hello world

@ 3a8a16a7:f4c3b0b4

lkhkjhlk

!?

@ 2ce0697b:1ee3d3fc

Excerpt

Special Jurisdictions, Free Cities and Bitcoin Citadels are the sly roundabout way that is removing the market of living together from the hands of the government, without violence and in a way that they can´t stop it. With Bitcoin as the backbone of a new societal order, we are beginning to disrupt the old paradigm.

---

“If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.” ― Henry David Thoreau, Walden

---

The problem: lack of freedom in the physical realm

Freedom is essential to human life. Being free is what matters. That´s our target, always. No matter the time or space. We pursue freedom because we know its the right thing to do. Freedom is the right to question and change the stablished way of doing things.

Where can we find some freedom? Certainly in the cyberspace. The cyberspace is a free space. Humanity has been blessed by the magic of cryptography, a technology that gave us all the necessary tools to operate in that environment without intervention of undesired third parties.

In cyberspace cryptography performs the function of an impenetrable cyberwall. So, whatever we build in cyberspace can be perfectly protected. Thank to this cybernetic walls we can be sure that the gardens we build and nurture will be protected and cannot be trampled. When we build our digital gardens we have the keys to open the doors to let in whoever we want and most important to leave out whoever we don´t want. In the digital world we can already perfectly interact with one and another in a peer to peer way, without intervention of undesired third parties.

In cyberspace we have Bitcoin for freedom of money and Nostr, torrent and Tor for freedom of information and speech. These open-source protocols are designed to fully realize and expand the promise of freedom, and they certainly deliver what they promise.

So, thanks to the magic of asymmetric cryptography, we´ve already achieved sufficiently descentralization and the possibility of any level of desired digital privacy. Cryptoanarchists and cypherpunks have set their conquering flag in cyberspace and there´s no force on Earth than can remove it. The digital world cannot escape the rules of cryptography. This is great but it only works in the digital realm, meanwhile in the physical realm we are overrun by centralized attackers due to the impossibility of the creation of impenetrable walls such as the ones we have online.

Humans have the upper hand in creating impenetrable walled gardens in cyberspace, but in the physical space authoritarians have the upper hand in bullying physical persons.

The physical world is also naturally free. According to natural law each person is free to do whatever he wants as long as it doesn´t hurt other people. However due to unnatural -artificial and inhuman- centralization of power, the natural freedom of the physical world has been completely undermined. Mostly by Governments, the entities that centralize violence and law.

Bitcoin as a bridge between both realms

Let´s take a look at one connection between both realms, the physical and the digital world. Bitcoin layer one is made essentially of software plus hardware. It consists of any software that produces the same output as the reference implementation - Bitcoin core- and the hardware needed to run that software. Layer two, three or any other layer above, is made essentially of other software and other hardware that interacts with layer one in some way. All these layers, one, two and subsequent, are completely protected by cryptography and a set of game theories that have been successfully tested. Each new block added to the timechain is a testimony of the unstoppable force of freedom and meritocracy.

Before layer one we have Bitcoin layer zero, which is essentially the sum of all actions and inactions done by bitcoiners regarding to or because of bitcoin. In other words, layer zero is composed by flesh and bone people interacting in some way with layer one of the bitcoin network.

Hence, an attack on a bitcoiner - on his way of life- is an attack on bitcoin, the network itself. First because it is an attack on a layer zero node, the physical person, the bitcoiner under duress or coercion. And second because is also an attack on the store-of-value-aspect of bitcoin. Nowaday, the most common attack against bitcoiners is the entirety of compliance regulations. This is the sum of all coercive regulations,such as laws, threats of more laws, imprisonment, threats of more imprisonment, taxation, threats of more taxation, requirements to prove the origin of funds, coercive removal of privacy such as the travel rule, unnecessary bureaucracy such as the need to obtain a money transmitting license and many others rules, in a never stopping inflationary coercive legislation.

If a physical attack is preventing any bitcoiner to exchange the value he created for bitcoin due to any kind of artificial obstacles -such as any kind of compliance- that specific attack is successful in the sense that even though the whole network keeps operating, the attack itself diminishes the value of all the bitcoins.

So, even if layer-zero cannot be taken down, every interference on this layer is an attack on the bitcoin network. Attacks on layer one, two or any other layer that exists in the cyberspace can interfere with the network but they may hardly subtract any value from it. For example we have already been through plenty of times where hashing power was diminished due to government intervention and the bitcoin network remain completely unaffected.

On the other hand successful attacks on layer zero subtract potential, but real and demonstrable value. This value is equal to the amount of value the frustrated user would have added to the network if he would have been able to use it freely, that means if he would have sold his product without the cost of compliance. I´ll demonstrate this in the next chapter.

The cost of compliance

Alice is a merchant specialized in a specific area and topic. She studied the market, her business, her suppliers, consumers, the logistics involved, marketing, design, and everything necessary to become a successful entrepreneur. After investing a considerable amount of resources, she developed a perfect product. Or at least she considers it perfect, that is, the best in its class. While developing everything necessary to create her product, she met Bob, who became her main lead and stereotype of a buyer persona. She knows what Bob wants and she wants to sell it to him. According to Alice's calculations, for her business to be viable, she must sell the product at ten satoshis per unit, and fortunately, Bob is willing to pay that price for it. Alice's product is finished, ready to hit the market, but just before sending it to production, Alice decides to take a pause to analyze her reality. Before taking the public action of making her product available in the open market, Alice analyzes her material, political, and legal reality. In doing so, she realizes that she lives under the jurisdiction of a State. She learns that the Government prescribes through its regulations how she must behave. She analyzes that in order to sell her product legally, in compliance, she must make a series of modifications to it. The product before hitting the shelves must first be modified both in the way it is presented to the market and also regarding certain technical characteristics that it possesses. She must also modify the way it produces her product by changing the contractual relationship with its suppliers, distribution channels, and all other types of logistics involved. She must make all these changes even if they bring about significant and insurmountable inefficiencies.

Likewise, Alice also sees that she not only has to modify the product but also has to meet tax obligations. In addition to paying an accountant since the tax obligations by some irrational reason are not calculated by the creditor. Additionally, she must hire other professionals to assist her in studying the current regulations and how they should be applied in all stages of production, distribution, and sale of her product.

Alice, being a rational person, wishes to avoid having to make these modifications since they increase her costs while also decreasing the quality of her product. But when studying compliance, that is, the entirety of applicable regulations, she also examines the consequences of not being in compliance. Alice realizes that if she does not comply with the regulations, she risks having all her assets legally confiscated, going to prison, being killed while they try to capture her to imprison her, and, if she goes to prison, being tortured in jail by other inmates or by State officials in charge of holding her in that place. So, since Alice does not want to suffer these negative consequences, she decides to modify the product and be in compliance.

So, Alice makes the necessary changes and puts her new version of the product on the market. Then she has the following dialogue with Bob, her lead, the interested party in acquiring the product.

Bob: - Hey Alice, nice meeting you here in this market. I came to buy the product you were developing and told me about. However, this product I´m seeing now is not what you promised me. This is clearly inferior.

Alice: - Yeah, I know. I'm sorry Bob, but I prefer to sell this inferior product rather than risk having all my assets confiscated, going to prison, being killed while they try to capture me, and if they don´t kill but managed to put me in jail I could be tortured there.

Bob: - Ok, no problem. Thats quite understandable. I don´t believe anyone would prefer those kind of experiences. But given the quality of the product, I no longer intend to pay you ten satoshis; I only offer you eight. Shall we close the deal?

Alice: - I'm sorry Bob, but I can't sell it to you for eight sats. Due to government intervention and its requirements, now I can't even sell it for less than thirteen satoshis.

Bob: - Ok. Considering this I prefer not to purchase it. I will keep looking for alternatives. Bye

Some time later, Charlie arrives at the market, who is also interested in the product and, despite it not being like the original version, decides to purchase it by paying the thirteen satoshis demanded by the seller Alice.

Meanwhile, in the same universe, we have Daniel, the last character in this example. Daniel is a merchant competing with Alice. Daniel has a product that is very similar, practically identical to the one originally designed by Alice. Like Alice, Daniel initially also wants to sell it for ten satoshis. Just like Alice, before heading to the market, Daniel analyzes the reality in which he lives. And it turns out that he also lives under the jurisdiction of a State. Daniel too then analyzes the entirety of the applicable regulations and also comes to the conclusion that to comply with them, he would also need to modify the product and cover all the additional expenses artificially generated to be in compliance.

However, Daniel's ethics are different from Alice's. Daniel understands that his product is indeed perfect (the best in its class) and that therefore modifying it would go against its essence. Daniel understands that changing the product would be a betrayal of his creation and therefore a betrayal of his own self and the essence of his being. Daniel conducts an ethical analysis of his actions and the moral implications of putting the product on the market. Daniel sees that the product not only does not harm anyone but is also made to be freely acquired by adults who give their consent for its purchase and subsequent use. Daniel also understands that paying taxes only serves to promote the slavery system driven by fiat and that whenever he can avoid collaborating with the immoral fiat system, it is his ethical obligation to do so. Likewise, Daniel highlights the hypocrisy and inefficiencies of anti-money laundering regulations, as well as the futility of requiring licenses for naturally free acts that do not harm others. For all these reasons, Daniel decides to sell the product in its current state irregardles of compliance regulations.

However, before going to market, Daniel also studies the possible consequences of neglecting compliance. By doing so, Daniel sees that if he does not comply with the regulations, he risks having all his assets legally confiscated, going to prison, being killed while they attempt to capture him to imprison him, and, in the event of going to prison, being tortured in jail by other inmates or by State officials responsible for holding him in that place. So, since Daniel is a rational person who does not want to suffer these negative consequences but also does not want to betray his product and himself, he decides to take the risk of not being in compliance. After making this decision, Daniel puts the product on the market and there he meets Bob. In doing so, they converse in the following terms:

Bob: - Hey Daniel, this product is exactly what I was looking for. A product like the one promised by Alice but never delivered. I love it! I offer you ten satoshis for it.

Daniel: - Thank you for your feedback Bob and for the offer! However I am currently selling it for eleven satoshis. Ten satoshis seems like a good price to me, and it was indeed my original intention to sell it for that amount because at that price I achieve competitiveness and a sustainable business model.

Bob: - So why are you asking me for eleven satoshis? Interrupts Bob

Daniel: - Because that price is calculated before assessing compliance and the risks associated with non-compliance. By not complying with the regulation, I managed to maintain the quality of the product and avoided a large amount of unnecessary expenses, but there is no way to avoid the risk of facing penalties for non-compliance. To bring this product to market, I had to incur several expenses in order to minimize the risk of non-compliance as much as possible. While I am taking all reasonable actions to prevent all of my assets from being legally confiscated, from going to prison, from being killed while they try to capture me, and in case of going to prison, from being tortured, the reality is that I still run the risk of all that, or part of all that, happening to me, my family, or any of my company's employees. The remaining risk balance is transferred to the price along with the costs of mitigating those risks. The total of those costs and the remaining risk I estimate them at one satoshi per unit of product. Therefore, I can't sell you the product for ten satoshis, but I can sell it to you for eleven.

To which Bob, lacking a better option in the market, ends up buying the product for eleven satoshis.

In summary: two products were made by two different merchants whose business model allowed them, in both cases, to put the product on the market at a rate of ten satoshis per unit. However, in one case, a lower quality product was sold for thirteen satoshis, and in the other case, a higher quality product was sold for eleven satoshis. That is to say, in the first case there was an overprice or inefficiency objectively measured at three satoshis, while in the second case there was an overprice or inefficiency of one satoshi. So, we are facing a total loss of value equivalent to four satoshis. The value represented by these four satoshis was absorbed by the inefficiency programmed and ruled by the State. The example shows us that whether one chooses the compliance route, as Alice did, or the free market route, as Daniel did, in both cases the existence of regulations generates an additional cost to the market. In this example the state attack on layer zero was successful and extracted from the Bitcoin network a value of four satoshis.

Bitcoin is money

Bitcoin is many things but essentially is money. And money sole purpose is to store value in order to facilitate future exchanges of products and services with other people. Without the products and services to be exchanged for the money, money itself would be useless and worthless. We only use money because we may require favors, benefits, services, products from other people in the future. And we don´t know which services and products we´ll need nor exactly when we are goint to need them.

The total value of bitcoin equals to infinity divided twenty one millions. This is because the total worth of the network mirrors the total worth of accumulated capital by the entirety of mankind throughout its entire history. That is clearly a lot of value. But if the if the dividend equals zero then the divisor is also zero and if the dividend growth is obstructed through artificial means -such as compliance- then the divisor growth is also obstructed.

Bitcoin layer zero, the bitcoiners and the services and products we create, are what give value to the twenty one million units of bitcoin.

Freedom is without a doubt the best context for value creation. So, the more and better games we can create that allow humankind to find a way to exercise freedom, then the most value we can add to all the layers of the network.

This is why the most important layer of the whole bitcoin phenomenon is layer zero, the bitcoiners. Hence the problem to be solved is not how to prevent bitcoin - layer one upwards- from successful attacks. The problem to solve is how to prevent attacks on layer zero. Or in other words, the problem to be solved is how to get bitcoiners in the physical world to practice the same level of freedom that bitcoin achieves in the cyberspace.

Summary of the first part of this article: freedom in cyberspace has already been conquered and each further development in the digital realm contributes to further developments but only in the same realm. Meanwhile in the physical space, the layer zero of bitcoin is under constant attacks that successfully extract value from it.

Exercising freedom in a sly roundabout way

In 1984 the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek predicted that we couldn´t take money with violence out of the hands of government. He stated that we needed to do it in a sly roundabout way. Twenty five years later Satoshi Nakamoto discovered the sly roundabout way actually introducing something that the government couldn´t stop. Thus fulfilling Hayek´s prophecy.

Bitcoin is a sly roundabout way that removed money without violence from the hands of the government in a way that they can´t stop it.

Cryptography in general and protocols such as Tor and Tails are a sly roundabout way that removed confidential information from the hands of the government without violence in a way that they can´t stop it.

Nostr is a sly roundabout way that removed social media and public information from the hands of the government without violence in a way that they can´t stop it.

Special Jurisdictions, Free Cities and Bitcoin Citadels are the sly roundabout way that is removing the market of living together from the hands of the government without violence in a way that they can´t stop it.

So, what are Special Jurisdictions, Free Cities and Bitcoin Citadels? To understand what they are we can take a look at the current mainstream market of living together, at how the physical space is organized. Essentially the entire planet Earth and its surroundings are run by a conglomerate of Governments. They create all the rules, regarding every aspect of life, of all the individuals, and enforce every rule through coercive means.

In the mainstream market of living together individuals have several alternatives to pick from. We can choose to live in a natural city or a pre design city, in a public neighborhood or private neighborhood or even in an intentional community with common interest amongst the users. But irregardless of the choice, every product offered in the mainstream market has the sames rules which are established by the host state to the entirety of organizations in his territory. In the mainstream market, even the most different products abide by the same high level rules such as criminal law, civil law, taxation laws, customs, enviromental laws, money laundering regulations and many others. To abide to the sum of all the laws and regulations is to be in compliance.

The centralization of regulations makes extremely difficult to experiment in market of living together. The less experimentation is allowed, the more human progress is hindered.

So what is the sly roundabout that fixes this? What are Special Jurisdictions, Free Cities and Bitcoin Citadels? I´m using the term Special Jurisdictions as an umbrella term that includes the entire spectrum of iterations of products that aim to modify the mainstream rules of the market of living together.

This term includes all the different models such as Charter Cities, Free Cities, Special Economic Zones, microstates, micropolis, start up societies, government as a service, self governing jurisdictions, autonomous intentional communities, network states and Bitcoin Citadels. The array of possible iterations is huge and permanently expanding. What they all have in common is that each of these experiments aims to create a functional game theory that replaces the lack of unbreakable walls in the physical space.

Let´s take a look of a couple of examples. Special Economic Zones are bounded areas of countries that have their own rules and regulations. Worldwide, there are more than five thousands special economic zones located in more than hundred countries.

One of them is the special economic zone of Shenzhen in China. The Chinese government allowed Shenzhen the freedom to experiment with certain practices that were prohibited in the rest of the country at the time. This included allowing foreign companies to make direct investments in China, allowing people to buy and sell land, allowing Chinese people to set up their own private businesses and relaxation of the system that limited internal migration within China for Chinese citizens. It served as a place where China could experiment with market reforms. The experiment was such a huge economic success that it was replicated in many other areas of the country.

Another place that has made extensive use of special economic zones is Dubai. The monarchic Government has more than 30 SEZs. In this case one of the many obstacles removed by the host state its the monopoly of the legal system. Dubai Government allowed the special economic zone to have its own independent legal system thus conceding a modification of the mainstream rules in that area.

This kind of projects, such as Dubai or Shenzhen, are a top-to-down product. Fully created by the Governments thus compliant with their own regulations.

On the other side of the spectrum we have Citadels and several other archetypes of not so compliant projects .

For example the Free Commune of Penadexo it´s a grassroots project building a freedom-oriented community in one of Spain’s abandoned villages.

It´s model is based on building a peer to peer society avoiding government intervention as much as possible. They stablished themselves in an abandoned historic village and the started to track down the owners to purchase as much property as possible. Meanwhile, they are living there and expanding their users base while also reconstructing buildings.

This is an example of a completely different way of dealing with the Government. While Special Economic Zones are fully compliant and created top to down, this model on the other hand is bottom-up and aims to add value to the users relying in factual freedom which is exercised by stablishing the commune away from heavily populated centers where Government grip is tighter. Under this model the interaction with the Government is kept as low as possible. Their strategy relies in ignoring the Government as much as possible and being a good neighbor. With this simple and effective tactic some Citadels enjoy the benefits of liberty in their lifetime without needing to spend huge resources in governmental lobby.

There are countless models or archetypes of Bitcoin Citadels trying to solve the obstacles in different ways, trying to restart the system. And one of the challenges of the Bitcoin Citadels is how to connect the different projects to boost and help each other.

This is where The Meshtadel comes into play. The Meshtadel is a system where decentralized tactics are used to help and defend citadels connected in a global network. With real life connections with fellow bitcoiners. Its an organization equivalent to the hanseatic league built under a starfish model. If you cut off a spider’s head, it dies, but if you cut off a starfish’s arm, it can regenerate and even grow into a new starfish.
The Meshtadel its a network of peer relationships, with ambiguous leadership roles, trust among participants, a shared ideology and vision based on the Bitcoin ethos, and an open system where new nodes - bitcoin citadel builders - can participate.

The long term goal of the Bitcoin Meshtadel is to help Bitcoin Citadels to gain the support of a critical mass of the total population. If enough people see that Bitcoin is as peaceful as it gets, in the long run, some nations could become friendly and supportive enough to legally tolerate the Bitcoin Citadel inside its territory in the form of a Bitcoin safe haven. In the Meshtadel we are fighting from the moral high ground using memes, Nostr notes and zapping our way into freedom creating an online and offline circular economy.

TO CONCLUDE:

Special Jurisdictions, Free Cities and Bitcoin Citadels are the sly roundabout way that is removing the market of living together from the hands of the government, without violence and in a way that they can´t stop it.

Nation states, abusing the myth of authority, have halted development on the market of living together for so long that a blooming freer market is eating its lunch. The sovereign individual thesis is live and continuously expanding. The network state is forming and intentional communities are flourishing all around the world reshaping globally the relationship between individuals and the governments.

With global internet connections, uncensorable means of communication and Bitcoin as the backbone of a new societal order, we are beginning to disrupt the old paradigm.

The fashion of the present world is passing away, let’s help it to move forward along by building Special Jurisdictions, Free Cities and Bitcoin Citadels.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------

byCamiloat 875.341 timechain.

If you find this content helpful, zap it to support more content of the sort and to boost the V4V model.

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Thomas Eisinger. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier.**

---

Die neuesten Artikel der Friedenstaube gibt es jetzt auch im eigenen Friedenstaube-Telegram-Kanal.

---

Vor Kurzem war ich bei einem «Ecstatic Dance» (mehr dazu z. B. hier) dabei. Wer das noch nicht kennt: es lohnt sich! Irgendwann in diesem speziellen Space bekam ich einen Gedanken - oder er kam von irgendwo zu mir: die Vorstellung, dass niemand in meiner Reihe von Eltern, Großeltern, Ahnen je an so etwas hätte teilnehmen können. Einmal, weil es das damals nicht gab. Zum Zweiten, weil ihr Mind niemals für so etwas offen gewesen wäre, gar nicht sein konnte. Sie alle waren einfache Menschen, die genug damit zu tun hatten für das Überleben der eigenen Familie zu sorgen. Urlaub war ein Fremdwort, intellektuelle Faxen gab es ganz sicher keine. Diese meine Vorstellung erschuf ein inneres Bild in mir: ich sah meine beiden Großmütter wild und lebensfroh durch den Raum tanzen! (Übrigens wurden beide 95 Jahre alt, trotz zwei Kriegen, Währungsreform, Hunger und ohne jemals Sport getrieben oder Ernährungsratgeber gelesen zu haben. Dies nur am Rande).

Ich erfreute mich an dem Bild der tanzenden Großmütter, konnte mich eines breiten Grinsens nicht erwehren. Nach dieser Freude wechselte mein Gefühl jäh zu Dankbarkeit. Dafür, in dieser wunderbaren Zeit leben zu dürfen. In der so viel mehr möglich ist als es jemals war. Das enge Korsett, das die Gesellschaft seit Jahrtausenden jedem auferlegt hatte, ist so viel weiter geworden. Nur, wenn man es selbst annehmen möchte (oder zumindest meint, dies tun zu müssen) kann es noch Macht ausüben. Sonst nicht. Die persönliche Freiheit ist größer als jemals zuvor, wenn man sie mit den Hundert Generationen vor uns vergleicht. Natürlich ist aktuell «the Trend not our friend», aber wir haben die Wahl, den Zeitmaßstab selbst anzulegen. 10 Jahre, 100 oder 200 Jahre? Lass es vor Deinem inneren Auge erscheinen ...

Die innere Freiheit ist größer als in all den Zeiten vor meiner Generation (Boomer). Millionen Menschen haben Meditationserfahrung, einige können sich mit Informationsfeldern (jenseits der rechtgläubigen Physik) verbinden und darüber sprechen, ohne dass sie verbrannt werden. Man muss keiner offiziellen Religion mehr folgen, um Verbindung mit dem Höheren zu erlangen. Im Gegenteil, die Ablösung von den Amtskirchen erleichtert dies für viele sogar. Wie auch immer, der eigenen Wahl stehen weder Priester noch Eltern oder starre Konventionen entgegen. Anders als vor 100 oder 200 Jahren. Just do it!

Es geht noch weiter. Wie dankbar bin ich, dass ich in dieser Zeit leben darf. Dass trotz des Leides meiner in ziemlicher Armut lebender Großeltern ihr Wille zum Überleben stärker war: nur deshalb kann ich hier sein. Ich darf all diese Vorzüge genießen, obwohl ich viel weniger hart arbeiten muss(te) als sie. Auch wurde mein Haus nicht ausgebombt und ich musste nie in den Krieg ziehen. Meine beiden Großväter ereilte dieses Schicksal. Ob mein Sohn diesem Schicksal entrinnt?

Wir sollen wieder kriegstüchtig werden. Unfassbar. Doch damit will ich diese Betrachtung nicht enden lassen. Denn nur wenn wir auch begreifen, wie gut es uns allen geht, trotz dieser Regierung, trotz Massenpropaganda, trotz dauernder medialer Panikmache: erst, wenn wir das Leben wirklich lieben, werden wir wissen, wofür es sich wirklich lohnt zu kämpfen. Nicht mit Waffe in der Hand, sondern mit Herz und Verstand.

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt.

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: friedenstaube@pareto.space

---

Sie sind noch nicht auf Nostr and wollen die volle Erfahrung machen (liken, kommentieren etc.)? Zappen können Sie den Autor auch ohne Nostr-Profil! Erstellen Sie sich einen Account auf Start. Weitere Onboarding-Leitfäden gibt es im Pareto-Wiki.

@ 3c389c8f:7a2eff7f

Let go of the algorithms and truly discover what it means to explore. Social media used to mean something. Once upon a time, it was a way to stay connected to friends, family, and colleagues over things we enjoy. We could share, laugh, and learn. Over time, it has devolved into cheap entertainment at the cost of our privacy. Our relationships and interests have been shoved into a corner in order to make room for "suggested posts" and "for you" content designed to evaluate our attention for advertising purposes. We've lost what it means to truly connect, and we've lost what it means to explore our curiosities.

Enter Nostr. A protocol designed to resist authoritative censorship, just happens to fix a whole lot of other problems, too. By removing the central authority, Nostr offers its users complete control of what we feed our minds. How do we break our algorithm dependency to find better content and better relationships again? We explore and discover:

The Chronological Life.

The existence of time may be debatable but our dependence on our perception of it is not. We live our lives chronologically. Why do our online lives need to be any different? There is no real reason, other than we've just gotten used to being engulfed by whatever the black box wants us to see. When we remove the algorithms, we find that online information flows just as it would in our daily lives. Important events get talked about by many people, over a long period of time. Things of less relevance fade. We see the rhythm of life reflected in our feed. This is an organic human experience transferred to the digital world. We depend on the people we know and the sources we trust to keep us informed about what really matters. We have fun, we move on. Nearly every Nostr social client brings this experience front and center through the traditional follow feed. Many use replies as a way to show you what is worth talking about for more than a hot minute. Its what old social media gave us, then took away. Nostr gives it back. It's not the only way to enjoy Nostr, though, so let's continue.

"The Human Animal Differs From the Lesser Primates in His Passion for Lists"

Who doesn't love lists? (besides maybe to-do lists.) List functionality on Nostr is a powerful way to curate your feeds. You can make lists of artists, vendors, friends, or whatever you want. They can be public or private. You can subscribe to other people's public lists too. Make one to share with your friends. Many clients have list support and management. Amethyst, Nostur, Voyage, and Nostrudel are a few that come to mind. Nostr.band and Listr.lol offer in depth list management. Some clients even support lists for specific notes so that you can curate a feed by topic or aesthetic to share with your friends.

Being John Malcovich.

Everyone has a different view of Nostr. Do you want to see what someone else is seeing? Sign in with any npub to get a different perspective. You might find profiles and content that you didn't know existed before. Some clients integrate variations of this feature right into their apps, so you don't have to log out of your account in order to step through that tiny door.

DV-what? DVM.

Data Vending Machines. These fancy little things are AIs tasked with a simple job: to find content for you. Most of these feeds are free, though some more personalized ones require a small fee. Many DVM services are stand-alone apps, like Vendata and Noogle . These clever Nostr clients will let you do a lot more than just create feeds to browse notes. Explore if you wish. A few social clients have DVMs integrated, too, so if you see "discovery" or similar term on a tab, be sure to check it out.

Relays, Man. Relays.

It's right there in the name. Nostr- notes and other stuff transmitted by RELAY. Specialized relays exist for subjects, news, communities, personal spaces, content creators, cats... there's even a relay where everyone just says "Good Morning" to each other. Find a client that lets you browse a relay's contents, and enjoy the purest form of content discovery on Nostr. Unearthing these relays is getting better and better every day. Right now there are relay browsing capabilities in quite a few clients, like Coracle, Relay Tools, Jumble and Nostur.

The Algo Relay.

Maybe you've been busy and missed a lot. Maybe you are a sane person who rarely uses social media. Hook up with a personalized algorithm relay to catch you up on all the things you've missed. This is skirting the sharp edges of Nostr relay development, so keep in mind that not many implementations yet exist. Algo relay currently aims to bring the feel-good vibe of your chronological feed to an algorithmic feed, freeing up your time but letting you stay up with what 's going on in your social circles.

Trendy Trends.

A few clients, relays, and DVM's have developed various Trending feeds. Catch up on what's popular across a wider view of the Nostr ecosystem. If trends are your thing, be sure to check them out.

Now that you're equipped with the tools to explore Nostr, its time to go discover some great content and find your people. Feed your curiosity.

@ 3c389c8f:7a2eff7f

TL;DR visit this post for a list of signers

Your nsec/private key is your key to controlling all that you do on Nostr. Every action you take is signed by this private key, validating that was you that generated that event, whether it be a note, a like, a list, or whatever else. Like a broken record, I have to state that it is irreplaceable. YOU own your identity and no one else. It is your responsibility to keep your nsec safe, but of course, you also want to be able to use all the different apps and clients available. To aid you in this process, a few different tools have been developed. Let's take a look at some that are more common and easy-to-use, where to use them, and for what.

The Browser Extension

This is probably the simplest and most straight forward form of private key manager available. There are many options to choose from, each compatible with various, commonly used browsers, including mobile browsers. Many provide the option to manage multiple keys for different profiles. Some are simply a signer while others may include other features. The concept is very simple. The extension holds your key and exposes it only only enough to sign an event. These extensions can be set to different levels of manual approval that you can control based on the level of convenience you seek. The ease and convenience does trade off a bit of security, as your private key will be exposed momentarily each time you create an event. It is up to you to choose whether this is appropriate for your use. For casual browsing and social media use, it is a fairly good and easy to use option. Nearly all Nostr apps and clients support signing with this method.

The Remote Signer

Often referred as a "bunker", Nostr remote signers hold your private key completely offline and communicating with clients. Clients send events to the signer to be signed, which then sends back the signed event for publishing. This bunker can be hosted on your own hardware or managed by a truested 3rd party. As long as the signer is online, it can communicate as needed. The signer generates a "bunker string" that is used to communicate. These may seem cumbersome to set up, as each client that you intend to use will need its own permissions. Once all of the pieces and permissions are in place, most of this activity will happen in the background. Bunkers allow for a lot of flexibility. The "bunker string" for a single app can be shared with other users who you may want to be able to make posts on your behalf. Multiple people can manage a social media profile, while the main owner of that identity maintains control of the nsec. These bunker strings can be revoked and replaced at any time. This signing method is growing in popularity and many clients already offer support for it.

The Native Android Signer

Currently, Amber is the only native app available to handle Nostr event signing. It is an incredible tool for managing your Nostr key on your mobile device. The signing flow is similar to remote signing, as described above, but it can communicate with both your Android native Nostr apps and web clients accessed through most mobile browsers, eliminating the need for a browser extension. Similar apps are under development for iOS, but I don't use any of those devices, so covering that here will only happen via other's opinions at a later date. Check this list for current options.

NcryptSec

NcryptSec signing works by encrypting your nsec on a local device, unlocked by a password that you choose. Support for this method is very limited, as the encrypted private key stays on your device. If you intend to use Nostr through one device and few apps, this can be a very secure option, as long as you can remember your password, as it cannot be changed.

NFC and Hardware Signers

Some devices have been developed to store your nsec completely offline on a device or NFC chip, and some clients have added support for scanning/connecting to sign. I haven't personally tried any of these options, nor do I intend to promote the sale of any particular products. If you are interested in these techniques and devices, the information is not hard to find. The price of a devices varies, depending on your feature needs.

There are also DIY options that utilize existing hardware, if you are into that sort of thing.

Higher Security and Recoverability Options

Creating a scheme that allows for recovery of a lost key while maintaining the integrity of a unique identity is no easy task. The key must be fractured into shards, encrypted, and distributed across multiple servers in various locations, while you maintain a portion or portions of your own. These servers are run by trusted 3rd parties who will then sign events "with" you. Some include a scheme of running your own always online hardware to act as host for these shards. I fall short on the technical understanding of certain aspects of these processes, so I will spare you of my attempt to explain. As far as I know, there are a couple of methods underway that are worth paying attention to:

Frostr nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqs3fcg0szqdtcway2ge7zahfwhafuecmkx9xwg4a7aexhgj5ghleqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcqyrh3r7uhytc4dywjggxz24277xgqtvcadvnjfks6fram7gjpev9nuentfht

Promenade nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqydhwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnhv4ehgetjde38gcewvdhk6tcprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuam9wd6x2unwvf6xxtnrdakj7qpqqqq0dlpwxhw5l97yrcts2klhr9zqqpcmdfpaxm8r7hygykp630cq23ggph

For a List of signers, please visit this post.

@ 3c389c8f:7a2eff7f

Extentions:

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/flamingo-%E2%80%93-nostr-extensio/alkiaengfedemppafkallgifcmkldohe

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/nos2x/kpgefcfmnafjgpblomihpgmejjdanjjp

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/aka-profiles/ncmflpbbagcnakkolfpcpogheckolnad

https://keys.band/

https://github.com/haorendashu/nowser

The Remote Signer:

https://nsec.app/

https://github.com/kind-0/nsecbunkerd

Native Android Signer:

https://github.com/greenart7c3/amber

iOS

https://testflight.apple.com/join/8TFMZbMs

https://testflight.apple.com/join/DUzVMDMK

Higher Security Options: To start using Nostr with a secure, recoverable keypair: https://nstart.me/en

For Existing Keys: https://www.frostr.org/

Thank you to https://nostr.net/ for keeping a thorough list of Nostr apps, clients, and tools!

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

I'm excited to announce the release of Applesauce v1.0.0! There are a few breaking changes and a lot of improvements and new features across all packages. Each package has been updated to 1.0.0, marking a stable API for developers to build upon.

Applesauce core changes

There was a change in the applesauce-core package in the QueryStore.

The Query interface has been converted to a method instead of an object with key and run fields.

A bunch of new helper methods and queries were added, checkout the changelog for a full list.

Applesauce Relay

There is a new applesauce-relay package that provides a simple RxJS based api for connecting to relays and publishing events.

Documentation: applesauce-relay

Features:

• A simple API for subscribing or publishing to a single relay or a group of relays
• No connect or close methods, connections are managed automatically by rxjs
• NIP-11 auth_required support
• Support for NIP-42 authentication
• Prebuilt or custom re-connection back-off
• Keep-alive timeout (default 30s)
• Client-side Negentropy sync support

Example Usage: Single relay

```typescript import { Relay } from "applesauce-relay";

// Connect to a relay const relay = new Relay("wss://relay.example.com");

// Create a REQ and subscribe to it relay .req({ kinds: [1], limit: 10, }) .subscribe((response) => { if (response === "EOSE") { console.log("End of stored events"); } else { console.log("Received event:", response); } }); ```

Example Usage: Relay pool

```typescript import { Relay, RelayPool } from "applesauce-relay";

// Create a pool with a custom relay const pool = new RelayPool();

// Create a REQ and subscribe to it pool .req(["wss://relay.damus.io", "wss://relay.snort.social"], { kinds: [1], limit: 10, }) .subscribe((response) => { if (response === "EOSE") { console.log("End of stored events on all relays"); } else { console.log("Received event:", response); } }); ```

Applesauce actions

Another new package is the applesauce-actions package. This package provides a set of async operations for common Nostr actions.

Actions are run against the events in the EventStore and use the EventFactory to create new events to publish.

Documentation: applesauce-actions

Example Usage:

```typescript import { ActionHub } from "applesauce-actions";

// An EventStore and EventFactory are required to use the ActionHub import { eventStore } from "./stores.ts"; import { eventFactory } from "./factories.ts";

// Custom publish logic const publish = async (event: NostrEvent) => { console.log("Publishing", event); await app.relayPool.publish(event, app.defaultRelays); };

// The publish method is optional for the async run method to work const hub = new ActionHub(eventStore, eventFactory, publish); ```

Once an ActionsHub is created, you can use the run or exec methods to execute actions:

```typescript import { FollowUser, MuteUser } from "applesauce-actions/actions";

// Follow fiatjaf await hub.run( FollowUser, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d", );

// Or use the exec method with a custom publish method await hub .exec( MuteUser, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d", ) .forEach((event) => { // NOTE: Don't publish this event because we never want to mute fiatjaf // pool.publish(['wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com/'], event) }); ```

There are a log more actions including some for working with NIP-51 lists (private and public), you can find them in the reference

Applesauce loaders

The applesauce-loaders package has been updated to support any relay connection libraries and not just rx-nostr.

Before:

```typescript import { ReplaceableLoader } from "applesauce-loaders"; import { createRxNostr } from "rx-nostr";

// Create a new rx-nostr instance const rxNostr = createRxNostr();

// Create a new replaceable loader const replaceableLoader = new ReplaceableLoader(rxNostr); ```

After:

```typescript

import { Observable } from "rxjs"; import { ReplaceableLoader, NostrRequest } from "applesauce-loaders"; import { SimplePool } from "nostr-tools";

// Create a new nostr-tools pool const pool = new SimplePool();

// Create a method that subscribes using nostr-tools and returns an observable function nostrRequest: NostrRequest = (relays, filters, id) => { return new Observable((subscriber) => { const sub = pool.subscribe(relays, filters, { onevent: (event) => { subscriber.next(event); }, onclose: () => subscriber.complete(), oneose: () => subscriber.complete(), });

return () => sub.close();

}); };

// Create a new replaceable loader const replaceableLoader = new ReplaceableLoader(nostrRequest); ```

Of course you can still use rx-nostr if you want:

```typescript import { createRxNostr } from "rx-nostr";

// Create a new rx-nostr instance const rxNostr = createRxNostr();

// Create a method that subscribes using rx-nostr and returns an observable function nostrRequest( relays: string[], filters: Filter[], id?: string, ): Observable { // Create a new oneshot request so it will complete when EOSE is received const req = createRxOneshotReq({ filters, rxReqId: id }); return rxNostr .use(req, { on: { relays } }) .pipe(map((packet) => packet.event)); }

// Create a new replaceable loader const replaceableLoader = new ReplaceableLoader(nostrRequest); ```

There where a few more changes, check out the changelog

Applesauce wallet

Its far from complete, but there is a new applesauce-wallet package that provides a actions and queries for working with NIP-60 wallets.

Documentation: applesauce-wallet

Example Usage:

```typescript import { CreateWallet, UnlockWallet } from "applesauce-wallet/actions";

// Create a new NIP-60 wallet await hub.run(CreateWallet, ["wss://mint.example.com"], privateKey);

// Unlock wallet and associated tokens/history await hub.run(UnlockWallet, { tokens: true, history: true }); ```

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

Author: Taryn Christiansen

Introduction:

The future doesn’t look good for America. The economy is down, politics is in shambles, and, perhaps most devastating, the culture is split. The only agreement is that change is needed. This article aims to pave a road forward. Innovation drives the economy, and great innovations change and improve daily life. Joint efforts between public institutions and private enterprise, along with the energy and momentum generated by efficient and productive programs, can be orchestrated to cultivate national pride. But those programs need to have a noble purpose. Devotion toward technologies with the potential to transform and improve people’s lives should be the goal. Due to recent advancements in biotechnology, efforts should be directed there. Section 1 dives into the cultural divide. Section 2 outlines a way forward by examining the innovative process and how it can be implemented. Section 3 looks at the specifics of that implementation. Section 4 consists of concluding remarks about the future.

Section 1: A Divided Country

---

There are two competing visions dividing America. The Woke vision asserts that the United States was, and is, a fundamentally oppressive regime. The idea of a universal reason, the notion that human beings can attain progress in perpetuity through liberal democracy, science, and capitalism, is seen as nothing more than an ideological weapon used to coerce people into acquiescing to a hierarchy that benefits the few while exploiting the many – and so, out of principles of fairness and equity, the country has to be dismantled.

The Trumpian vision attempts to reaffirm American values. It aims to reestablish American exceptionalism and reinvigorate the American vision of prosperity and economic growth. It seeks to rekindle a sense of American greatness. But it does so cheaply. It is, in essence, the dying breath of a consumer culture fighting its own death. Like the first vision, it too rejects reason and discussion and the procedural processes necessary for liberal democracy. It perceives power as the proper political tool for achieving its objectives. It is not an attempt to restore the values that once characterized the country; it breaks from the American tradition in a radical direction toward a politics of entertainment.

Long ago, the country believed that the human capacity for reason – the ability to see the world clearly under the light of truth, unencumbered by bias or prejudice, free from instinct and emotion – was the torch that carries posterity forward. The founders believed the Bill of Rights and The Constitution enshrined eternal truths that reason alone made accessible. John Locke, an influential figure for the founders, stated that the primary purpose of government is to protect individuals' natural rights. We are all free and have the right to live the life we wish to live. But government is needed to ensure others do not interfere with those rights. What binds us is not a religion or creed but the mutual opportunity for each individual to form their own beliefs, to live out their own conceptions of the good. While fundamental, we will see that it is not enough. A collective purpose is necessary.

Now, the Woke vision sees this older view as wholly mythological – and for good reason. For example, there was a time when black people did not know they were descendants from Africa or the Caribbean and not naturally disposed slaves. People’s various histories and genealogies were stripped away, creating a space by which their humanity could be taken and they could be exploited. They were purposefully and intentionally cast into the shadows of history, and the culpable thought themselves perfectly justified. There was a time when moral and historical narratives depicting a grand destiny of white people conquering the West were considered to be true and that the genocide of Native peoples was not only acceptable but in fact necessary, and therefore legitimate. It has been a titanic and creative effort by great individuals and collective coalitions to get America to become self-conscious of its heinous blunders. Some of the best art and ideas of the twentieth century were born out of those efforts. The beginnings of liberation are born out of the ability to imagine a horizon beyond one’s current circumstances. And that ability for many people has been forged by courageous and heroic predecessors. But the spirit of those movements and their development into the Woke vision is a sign that it has lost its creative potential.

The Woke vision asserts that values like reason and rights are the remains of a colonial legacy. However, by negating them and failing to replace them with new values, deconstructive forces are all that remain. The country has historically failed (as well as succeeded) in living up to what reason and rights demand. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t the proper path forward. The assumption here is that they are, and they have to be creatively reinterpreted.

And the Trumpian vision fails as well. But it is worse because it never did, nor will it ever have any real creative potential. It is highly destructive. We can think about this in the following way.

The nineteenth-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed a single, fundamental drive governs all of organic life: the will to power. Life, in a constant struggle, perpetually strives to expand and overcome itself repeatedly. From the brute force of two animals fighting for scarce resources to the highest manifestation of human potential, such as moral systems and inspiring artwork, all are produced from the same vital energy and source: the effort to attain power and mastery over a chaotic world.

As society develops and moves away from a state of nature, the will to power transfigures itself through a sublimative process that demands the individual to repress particular instincts and act according to the strictures and constraints formulated and instituted by the collective. As Freud observed in his Civilization and Its Discontents, the push and pull between primitive and ancient instincts and civilization’s repression of them create inextricable tensions. The Yale historian Marci Shore makes an incisive observation of Trump as a symbolic figure using this context and its language: he is the release and outpouring of those repressed instincts – the license to overthrow the restraints placed on the individual. Trump is the embodiment of brute force, a blind ego striving to assert itself over the world, adopting whatever means are available to achieve its aim. He is an eruption of the repressed Hobbesian state of nature, which expresses “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death.” This is a destructive instinct, and we would be wise not to find out what follows.

Section 2: Unity Through Innovation

---

So, what is the solution? The country needs a ballast point. It needs national pride. Without a shared sense of identity and purpose, a sense of belonging to a larger community bound by a set of values, the country will continue to unravel. Regardless of the philosophical-level disputes and disagreements on fundamental principles that divide left from right, a collective identity needs to emerge. This article argues that, like the founders, we should turn to our institutions. We should look at how our institutions can facilitate needs by enabling individuals with the creative energy and tenacity to bring about new technologies and innovations that will transform the economy and standards of living. But not just new gadgets and services like iPhones and DoorDash but new technologies with the potential to enable people to live more fulfillingly and purposefully. New vaccines to eliminate unruly diseases, new therapies to mitigate the effects of debilitating illnesses, novel pharmaceuticals with competitive prices and cheaper means of production, and innovative mechanisms to empower people with disabilities to live as they are only able to imagine should play a major part in the mission that characterizes the country. That is a purpose to be proud of. Institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should act as bows, shooting forward the individuals and companies striving to reach that mark.

There’s a lot of talk about government efficiency and the need to be more fiscally responsible. Those are good things. But efficiency needs to have a purpose. There must be a goal that efficiency works to achieve. We should not wish to live without regulatory institutions. For example, people like Balaji Srinivasan are wrong to think we’re better off in an FDA-free society. The goal should be to harness those institutions, conduct more research and development, and utilize resources more effectively to achieve the results we want as a country. Just as we should strive to continue and expand our role in the AI race, we should also aim to maintain and further develop our leadership in biotech.

But we need a new of what the historian Gary Gerstle calls political order to achieve this. Political orders are “a vision of the good life that sells important constituencies on the virtues of a way of doing politics. The New Deal order and the Neoliberal order—which are, in a sense, the reverse of each other—illustrate this.”

It is common in America to see the world through the lenses of The New Deal and Neoliberal political orders for resolving issues in the country. The latter is to let the market decide, and the former is to create government programs to achieve some conception of the good. The former is, more or less, a libertarian solution and was very popular during the 1980s. The latter took form in what is known as progressivism, and it found popular expression during the 1930s and 1940s in FDR’s New Deal programs. The basic distinction separating these two political orders is between the right and the good.

Rights are the norms of obligations and constraints necessary for us all to coexist while simultaneously maintaining what many believe is the principal value of liberal democracy: freedom and liberty (these terms will be used interchangeably). Rights are not in the business of prescribing definite ways of life or enforcing particular ends for people to pursue. Rights preserve the conditions for freedom, and people are free to choose what to do with that freedom insofar as their decisions do not infringe on another person’s right to do so as well. Freedom, then, is the absence of coercion. By having that freedom, each is allowed to exercise their powers and capabilities according to their own discretion.

In the American context, by virtue of being a human being, we are said to be endowed with inalienable rights. And those rights both protect each individual from external coercion and provide a license for certain kinds of action. I am protected from being forced to say certain opinions and adopt particular beliefs. And I have the license to speak my own opinions, expound my own beliefs, and give voice to my own personal conscience. I am protected from forced association with people whom I do not wish to associate with, from the coercion to vote for a particular candidate, from being disallowed to protest, and from adopting ends I do not agree with or value. And, of course, that means I have a license to associate with whom I wish, vote for whoever I like, protest legislation I dislike, and adopt the ends I truly value. We are all free, and we all are obligated and constrained to preserve the conditions for us all to exercise that freedom mutually.

But if that is what rights are, how does a society ensure a distribution of goods and services for everyone to enjoy and partake in? After all, a right to free speech isn’t going to ensure anyone that they will have meals for nourishment, clothing for warmth, shelter from harsh conditions. The response comes from Adam Smith: economic freedom. Everyone has a natural propensity to “truck, barter, and trade” in order to improve their condition. And by the very nature of voluntary exchange, each party benefits. By an individual living his life according to his own interests, values, and ends, he “promote(s) an end which has no part of his own intention.” The invisible hand of the market promotes the ends held by other individuals, allowing everyone to live as they see fit and to coexist harmoniously with the community. By having the political freedom of rights and the economic freedom to exchange, people cooperate spontaneously and organically. That is the spirit of the neoliberal political order.

A conception of the good is different, and its meaning can be disclosed through the great liberal philosopher Voltaire’s likely apocryphal statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” What Voltaire disagrees with is not someone’s right to speak but of what they are saying, and we can imagine the person to be voicing their conception of the good, their values and ends that they believe characterize the good life, the life we ought to live, and Voltaire disapproves of it. The good is concerned with the proper ends that should be prioritized in order to flourish. Socrates famously declared the unexamined life is not worth living. Well, he’s espousing a conception of the good. It is a life of the intellect, a life of rational reflection and deliberation aimed toward self-knowledge. Are one’s beliefs consistent? Does one’s actions contradict what one truly believes? Is one aware of what one truly believes? And does one have the desire to discover the truth? These are Socratic questions, and a life devoted to answering them is a Socratic one.

Now, if there is a universal conception of the good life, if human beings have particular ends that define what it means to be a human being, and if failing to fulfill those ends implies a failure to realize one’s human potential for flourishing, then rights do not secure such outcomes. Rights only ensure individuals are free to pursue such ends if they wish. And given the contingency of life, that is to say that, because people are born into conditions they did not choose but were instead thrown into them, and because some individuals are born into wealth and advantage and some are born into poverty and disadvantage, some have the privilege to achieve the ends characterizing a good life and some do not. And that is unfair. And so, government programs, central planning, and economic stewardship can be used to enable and empower the underprivileged to achieve what others are better positioned to do. This is the spirit of the New Deal political order.

The mistake is to think the appropriate social, cultural, and political issues can be resolved by only one of these political orders. It is not one or the other. Both of these political orders capture powerful intuitions about how society should best function and operate, and there should be a synthesis between them.

Now, it is common knowledge that innovation drives economic growth. As capital becomes more efficient and fewer inputs are required to produce more outputs, the economy expands. In Matt Ridely’s book, Innovation: How It Works, he demonstrates beautifully the often messy and non-rational character of the innovative process.

At the heart of that process, he says, is serendipity. As frustrating as it is to human nature, the innovative process cannot be intelligently designed into a precise instrument capable of reproducing all the wonderful fruits that result from it. There is something inherently unpredictable about it, something unruly. It is organic and spontaneous. It demands the determination of individuals willing to fail over and over again until enough experience, insight, and gradual, often painstaking, progress results in the desired effects.

Ridley observes that so many of these innovations require the rich air of freedom to stimulate the instinct for exploration and discovery. Freedom nourishes and sustains that instinct, allowing it to grow and flourish. People must be free from unnecessary regulations and constraints to focus their creative energy on projects that demand endless hours of trying countless imaginative possibilities – and failing until something works. There’s always a tremendous amount of risk-taking. People need to be free to take them.

People also need to be free to collaborate with others who are also devoted to discovering a solution to seemingly intractable problems. The division of labor, where individuals specialize in a particular task and coordinate with others who do the same to maximize efficiency and productivity, is essential to the process. There’s a reason, as Ridley notes, that many innovations take place in cities, where individuals freely associate and influence one another.

Freedom also allows room for mistakes. Ridley documents many cases where innovation is the result of a mistake, not an intentional plan of action. Innovations can often begin with an intention that has nothing to do with the innovation itself. A deliberate decision leading to a breakthrough discovery can be entirely unrelated, even frivolous. Take the example of Louie Pasteur, one of the key discoverers of germ theory. He was inoculating chickens with cholera from an infected chicken broth when he left for vacation, leaving his assistant, Charles Chamberland, to continue the experiments. Charles, for whatever reason (perhaps he thought the whole idea was crazy), forgot about his responsibility and went on vacation. When both returned, they injected a chicken with the stale broth.

It made the chicken sick but did not kill it. And so he injected the same chicken with a much more virulent cholera strain that typically and easily killed chickens – and it failed. The chicken lived. Vaccines, an innovation on inoculation, emerged. Funny enough, a similar incident occurred with Alexander Fleming. Known for being sloppy, Fleming carelessly left out a culture plate of staphylococcus and took off for vacation for a couple of weeks. When he returned, he discovered a mold had grown that was resistant to the bacteria.

Penicillin was soon developed. All this is to say that, along with Ridley, “Innovation is the child of freedom and the parent of prosperity.”

But government has also been integral to many inventions and innovations that would later revolutionize the economy and, therefore, daily life itself. Mariana Mazzucato’s book The Entrepreneurial State makes a persuasive case for the significance of public institutions in the innovative process. When the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), initially known as ARPA until 1972, was established in 1958 in response to the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957, it aimed to promote ‘blue-sky thinking’ for technological initiatives. Meaning that the goal was to invest in riskier research that potentially would yield long-term gains despite not having any immediate or obvious returns on investment. DARPA pursued “ideas that went beyond the horizon in that they may not produce results for ten or 20 years.”

What makes DARPA a successful agency is its decentralized model. The philosophy is: "Find brilliant people. Give them resources. Get out of their way." DARPA hires talented and competent experts to run programs autonomously, providing them the discretion to pursue projects highlighted by their expertise, which are often considered risky. This model enables experts to connect with other researchers, facilitating collaboration and the creation of highly efficient and productive divisions of labor. And again, these are projects that likely wouldn’t find market interest because of their niche or unexplored nature. There isn’t an immediate and conspicuous payoff. And so the connected but separate-from-government model of DARPA provides scientists with a wide degree of latitude, and that freedom allows them to engage in the innovative process of trial and error and risk-taking.

Technologies developed by DARPA included ARPANET, the precursor to the internet; early GPS technology; the beginnings of autonomous vehicles; speech recognition; personal computing; and early AI.

Other agencies have also been foundational in technological advancements (for example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) provided critical grants to facilitate what would become Google’s search engine algorithm). But the DARPA model is what is most interesting here.

If government programs like DARPA can be leveraged to spur more innovation, particularly in areas such as biotech, and these innovations can drive economic growth by being put into the hands of entrepreneurs, investors, and small, medium, and large firms, then this demands national effort and attention. If successful, it is a project worthy of national pride.

So, government programs and spending, if properly structured, can yield high returns on investment if people are given the freedom to explore, try things out, and make the mistakes necessary for the innovative process to be carried through. And we can look to a recent example where the absence of the efforts potentially could have been disastrous. The story of the COVID-19 vaccines is one where the lack of zeal for exploration and breakthrough discoveries could have hindered the development of mRNA research, leaving it underdeveloped when it was needed at a critical moment.

Section 3: Covid-19, The Imperative For Research and Development, and The Institutional Framework

---

To start, Peter Theil is popular for remarking that innovation in many industries has grown stagnant. Energy, manufacturing, and transportation, for example, haven’t seen much progress in the past half-century.

Computation, on the other hand, has surpassed the imagination. The innovations have not been in atoms but in bits. As Theil puts it, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.” And Ridley writes, “If cars had improved as fast as computers since 1982, they would get nearly four million miles per gallon, so they could go to the moon and back a hundred times on a single tank of fuel.” Unfortunately, we still have to visit the gas station and pay those exorbitant prices.

But biotech has gained momentum in the past decade. The COVID vaccines are an extraordinary example of this. But they wouldn’t have been ready to come to market without the previous three decades of research and development invested in them. And that research and development almost didn’t happen because people lacked the vision and the willingness to embrace the risk that great technological discoveries, inventions, and innovations always require.

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book Abundance tells this story very well. Katalin Kariko, one of the discoverers of mRNA’s therapeutic capabilities, had enormous difficulty securing funding for her research as an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Those with power thought it too risky, that it didn’t show enough promise, and allocated most resources to DNA research at the time, believing it to be the more auspicious investment. Nevertheless, as so many pioneering figures have done before her, Kariko maintained her vision of unlocking mRNA’s potential for saving lives.

By sheer luck, by the fortune contained in everyday decisions that would lead to saving millions of lives several decades later, Kariko met a colleague who was researching HIV vaccines at the time, Drew Weissman, at a Xerox machine in 1997. He would be pivotal in her research. She is a biochemist, and he, an immunologist. Each provided the knowledge and expertise the other was lacking, and that was essential to their respective goals. Through the serendipity of deciding to walk to a different department to make copies at the time and place she did, Kariko encountered an opportunity to make strides in her research.

Together, however, the two still managed to collect barely enough funding. “The NIH,” which is the largest public funder of biomedical research, “rejected practically all of their grant applications.” They couldn’t get others to have the same foresight. Even after a breakthrough, where they were finally able to send mRNA information into cells without causing horrible inflammation, those in power still blinked. Fortunately, private investment supplied the gust they needed to keep their research going, and two companies created to pursue mRNA research, Moderna and BioNTech, facilitated the vaccine’s development. When Covid spread, enough progress had been made. The FDA, which has set a poor precedent for getting products to market when it matters most, streamlined the approval process and made the vaccine available.

The key features of this story are the following. The first is the lack of risk-taking by institutions and agencies whose aim should be to provide resources to those striving to innovate and push technological progress forward. The second is the lack of coordination to establish intentional environments to converge the paths of those who have the determination, discipline, and vision to bring innovation to fruition. Imagine if Kariko and Weismann didn’t meet; picture Kariko choosing to make copies somewhere else or at a different time. The future may have been radically different. And thirdly, and more optimistically, the FDA served a vital role when it mattered. As a public institution responsible for promoting the public good, they served admirably.

These three parts – funding research, coordinating talent, and the institutions facilitating the results – should coalesce into an optimally functioning whole. Researchers who are trying to shape and influence an unforeseeable future should be encouraged and rewarded. Those who possess powerful and novel ideas, along with the imagination and determination to bring them to life, should be in direct contact with one another. Their paths should cross – intentionally. And lastly, institutions should follow the FDA’s example. Slow regulatory regimes, lengthy processes and paperwork, licensing barriers, and stifling restrictions should be streamlined and transformed into facilitators for technological development and the introduction of powerful and revolutionary technologies into the market.

More funding should be devoted to riskier research. Those with novel and fresh ideas with the potential to disrupt current scientific knowledge and produce a breakthrough should be sought out. It is estimated that roughly 2-5% of the NIH’s current budget of $45 billion is allocated to high-risk research. That should be increased. Programs like the High-Risk, High-Reward Research Program, which includes awards to innovative researchers and ideas, should take on a more robust role and budget than it currently does.

Furthermore, approximately 80% of the NIH budget is allocated to extramural research programs, which are external programs conducted outside of the institution itself. A larger portion of those who receive that funding should be based on their potential for innovation. Currently, as Klein and Thompson observe, the process of obtaining a research grant, which involves extensive paperwork and minutiae, is bureaucratic, cumbersome, inefficient, and time-consuming. A significant amount of energy that should be allocated toward advancing research is spent on securing the funding to do it.

Submitting an application, going through the two review processes, and being approved takes typically nine months to a year. And most fail, leading many scientists to have to apply numerous times in a year. And those doing the review process aren’t necessarily looking for cutting-edge proposals; they’re looking for what fits bureaucratic standards. Of course, this is contentious, but Kariko's story demonstrates its reality. Ridley offers another example. When Francisco Majica made critical advancements in CRISPR technology, it took him “more than a year to get his results published, so sniffy were the prestigious journals at the idea of a significant discovery coming from a scientific nobody.” Institutions must do a better job of trying and supporting novel and unexplored ideas, regardless of who or what they originate from. For example, biotech DAOs do not currently receive funding from government institutions, such as the NIH, due to the traditional legal framework used to distribute resources. Regulatory and legal changes should be implemented to maximize their potential. If there is too much emphasis on process, on bureaucratic procedures and standards, fruitful and rich opportunities suffocate.

The NIH budget also allocates funds to intramural research programs, which are internally connected to the NIH itself. These research programs account for roughly 10% of the NIH’s total budget. A highly promising model to adopt is the DARPA model articulated in Section 2. The NIH should adopt something similar. It should allocate resources to decentralized programs to bring together the best scientists to generate breakthrough ideas. Those programs should be spaces where scientists are free to pursue visionary projects.

Smaller biotech firms, startups, and those without robust forms of funding are often forced to pursue ideas that will capture immediate investment attention. And because of the burdensome and costly bureaucratic processes, investors are justly skeptical about anything risky and cutting-edge.

For example, regarding the FDA approval process, small molecule drugs like pharmaceuticals generally take ten to fifteen years to reach the market. On average, one drug costs $1-2 billion to move through the process, and less than ten percent of those who enter clinical trials succeed. Biologics, such as vaccines and gene therapies, typically take ten to twelve years to reach the market and have a slightly higher success rate than small molecule drugs, ranging from 12 to 15 percent. Those are extensive periods of time, the costs are astronomical, and few can maintain the resources to climb the mountain. This discourages bold enterprise – and it leads to higher prices as well. Due to the cumbersome approval process, the FDA offers exclusivity to companies that bring a product to market, both to reward innovation and to allow companies the opportunity to recoup the tremendous losses incurred by the approval process. This can lead to monopolistic pricing. Innovation should not be rewarded by harming the consumer. Innovation should lift the tide that raises all boats. And so the innovative process shouldn’t be exclusive to those with enough capital to take risks. It should be available to anyone with the tenacity to actualize a bold and promising idea. That’s not to say the process should be less rigorous and methodical. It’s that it needs to be more efficient. But not just efficiency for efficiency's sake; it needs to be efficient toward the right ends and outcomes, and innovation should be a leading goal.

Therefore, a primary goal of the FDA should be to stimulate market interest by expediting the most innovative technologies emerging from research programs driven by the NIH and its innovation initiatives. It’s very important that private research continues innovating as well, and increases in private investment toward manufacturing and research – like Johnson & Johnson’s recent announcement – is good. But new technologies, drugs, vaccines, and therapies should be a central mission of the institutional framework advocated for here – and the process should begin with creativity for creativity’s sake. The profit motive should be employed after realizing a passionate and creative vision. Those truly motivated by inspiration, the people who have the will to manifest something novel and unimaginable, are generally the worst at navigating the business aspect - not always, but often. And the energy pushing them forward is a precious and scarce resource. And so institutions like the FDA and NIH should foster, rather than stifle, their capabilities and opportunities for creating meaningful contributions to the country and the world. The FDA has a history of being slow and untimely when it comes to processing and approving applications for moving to clinical trials. For example, the AIDS epidemic is a stain on the institution’s reputation. When AIDS spread across the US in 1980, it took scientists three years to identify HIV as the cause, five years for the FDA to approve the first blood test to screen for the virus, and seven years to finally get a drug to market. The response to COVID-19 should be the golden standard by which the FDA operates.

Section 4: Human Being and Its Essence

---

Now, let’s ask the following: what does this have to do with national pride? How does this provide a new vision for the country?

In Alex Karp’s new book, The Technological Republic, he criticizes Silicon Valley for forgetting its roots in developing technology for national purposes. The foundational technology that defines Silicon Valley originated from government programs like DARPA and NASA, which had a clear purpose. They had a mission, and the achievements under those programs demonstrate that.

But now Silicon Valley has shifted to the consumer. Innovations in Silicon Valley generally make life more convenient, comfortable, pleasant, breezy. Goods and services satisfy all our wants and preferences. New apps, better features on social media, increasingly competent virtual assistants, faster food delivery services, endless streams of television and movies and videos, smart appliances, and more and more advanced phones pervade everyday life. The goal is always immediate gratification. There is no horizon that these products look up to. Everything is here and now.

This takes us back to our discussion of rights and conceptions of the good. Silicon Valley isn’t tethered to any real purpose or collective aim. Its goal is to let the market decide. There is no moral or spiritual integrity, no conception of the good that permeates Silicon Valley and its products. Nothing is off limits because it is the consumer’s right to choose. If there is a want, if enough people are willing to buy, Silicon Valley will produce it. No substantive conviction guides their innovations. What does Silicon Valley stand for? It certainly has a creative spirit – just look at all the devices we have today – but that spirit lacks a purpose, and so it wanders aimlessly chasing the fleeting nature of the consumer.

It’s perfectly understandable that Silicon Valley has severed itself from its military roots. Not only would it lose a substantial portion of revenue if it returned to those roots, but there is, of course, a moral dilemma at the heart of most military endeavors, and it is wise to take that seriously. And the Tech sector should not aim to impose a conception of the good on the consumers. The issue is its obsession with the consumer. There are more pressing areas of concern that warrant attention. The wealth of talent in Silicon Valley is better spent in those areas. And it should be done through the efficient use of public institutions.

The new vision is one where taxpayer dollars are used for purposeful and meaningful projects that generate new technologies and innovations that contribute to people’s real needs, not just their wants and preferences. Genuine pride involves courage and bold risk for the sake of principle. It consists in having the determination to carry through an arduous enterprise. And we should be proud as a country if a joint effort between the public and private sectors achieves collective ends.

And at the heart of this pride should be the creative process. Albert Einstein wrote that great scientific discoveries – the new ideas that are leaps in progress toward the expansion of human knowledge – are, again, not the inevitable product of a rigid, refined, and precisely applied method. He believed the great discoveries, the ones that establish new scientific paradigms that enrich society with so many practical fruit, result from a cosmic feeling, a kind of religious experience born out of feelings of awe, wonder, and mystery that are produced by the intellectual and spiritual effort to understand the rational order of the cosmos. He writes, “Enough for me (is) the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifest itself in nature… I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research.”

Reaching for and clinching a new and profound idea is not a mechanical and algorithmic activity. Regardless of how finely one specifies the rules of procedure or how regimented the institutional standards for scientific knowledge are prescribed, intuition, sensitivity to the world and its objects, amazement at the experience of observing the world and its causal relations, in short, the feelings and moods of the subject investigating the object, are integral to the discovery of scientific ideas. Methods are pivotal in locating and developing the precise, logical nature of those ideas, but initial contact with them demands variables that are not reducible to fixed procedures. Ideas powerful enough to change the world and better the human condition originate in cosmic feelings of wonder and curiosity and are not strictly an output of a mechanized division of labor.

AI will outrun the human capacity for intelligence. This is a likely prediction. And so what will it mean to be a human being then? For centuries, philosophers have distinguished human beings from other parts of nature by invoking our seemingly unique capacity for reason. We have the ability to contemplate, reflect, and grasp the physical laws governing the cosmos. We can harness those laws and employ them to manipulate our environment, alter its forms, and recombine its parts, allowing us to raise our living standards beyond our ancestor’s imaginations. We are highly intelligent beings, and our intelligence has been regarded as our distinguishing mark.

AI erodes this image. This new technology is becoming, and perhaps already is, a concrete realization, an externalization of what history thought was uniquely our own. The reality that reason isn’t special, that it is nothing more than a physical product of an accidental evolution, a wisp of luck, has become more and more firmly impressed upon the mind over the last two centuries. AI will make it indelible; it is the final proof. And so what is a human being? What distinguishes us?

The answer is in our spontaneous acts of creativity, in our ability to produce beauty in art, complexity in design, and in our profound capability to experience wonder. Again, the innovative process discussed above cannot be rationally formed into a precise instrument. As frustrating as it is, as much as it bumps against our instinct to make everything intelligible and known, our ability for spontaneity and creativity, our capacity to fail over and over again until we receive those moments of imaginative brilliance, cannot be reduced into a definite set of rules and procedures.

And so as the world changes, as everything alters before our eyes, we have to value what makes us distinctly human. We need a new Enlightenment, one that celebrates our creativity and our will to manifest what we can internally envision. Our self-respect as individuals and collectives lies in our instincts for curiosity, inquiry, discovery, and the creative and imaginative processes that animate them.

@ 3a8a16a7:f4c3b0b4

lkhkjhlk

!?

@ 2fe297f6:553a49da

lkhkjhlk

!?

@ 2fe297f6:553a49da

Happy

This is your course initialization stub.

Please see the Docs to find out what is possible in LiaScript.

If you want to use instant help in your Atom IDE, please type lia to see all available shortcuts.

Markdown

You can use common Markdown syntax to create your course, such as:

1. Lists

2. ordered or

3. unordered

4. ones ...

| Header 1 | Header 2 | | :--------- | :--------- | | Item 1 | Item 2 |

Images:

Extensions

 --{{0}}--

But you can also include other features such as spoken text.

  --{{1}}--

Insert any kind of audio file:

   {{1}}

?audio

 --{{2}}--

Even videos or change the language completely.

   {{2-3}}

!?video

  --{{3 Russian Female}}--

Первоначально создан в 2004 году Джоном Грубером (англ. John Gruber) и Аароном Шварцем. Многие идеи языка были позаимствованы из существующих соглашений по разметке текста в электронных письмах...

{{3}}

Type "voice" to see a list of all available languages.

Styling

The whole text-block should appear in purple color and with a wobbling effect. Which is a bad example, please use it with caution ... ~~ only this is red ;-) ~~

Charts

Use ASCII-Art to draw diagrams:

                                Multiline
1.9 |    DOTS
    |                 ***
  y |               *     *
  - | r r r r r r r*r r r r*r r r r r r r
  a |             *         *
  x |            *           *
  i | B B B B B * B B B B B B * B B B B B
  s |         *                 *
    | *  * *                       * *  *
 -1 +------------------------------------
    0              x-axis               1

Quizzes

A Textquiz

What did the fish say when he hit a concrete wall?

[[dam]]

Multiple Choice

Just add as many points as you wish:

[[X]] Only the **X** marks the correct point.
[[ ]] Empty ones are wrong.
[[X]] ...

Single Choice

Just add as many points as you wish:

[( )] ...
[(X)] <-- Only the **X** is allowed.
[( )] ...

Executable Code

A drawing example, for demonstrating that any JavaScript library can be used, also for drawing.

```javascript // Initialize a Line chart in the container with the ID chart1 new Chartist.Line('#chart1', { labels: [1, 2, 3, 4], series: [[100, 120, 180, 200]] });

// Initialize a Line chart in the container with the ID chart2 new Chartist.Bar('#chart2', { labels: [1, 2, 3, 4], series: [[5, 2, 8, 3]] }); ```

Projects

You can make your code executable and define projects:

``` js -EvalScript.js let who = data.first_name + " " + data.last_name;

if(data.online) { who + " is online"; } else { who + " is NOT online"; } json +Data.json { "first_name" : "Sammy", "last_name" : "Shark", "online" : true } ```

More

Find out what you can even do more with quizzes:

https://liascript.github.io/course/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/liaScript/docs/master/README.md

@ 957df479:13e9e08e

Happy

This is your course initialization stub.

Please see the Docs to find out what is possible in LiaScript.

If you want to use instant help in your Atom IDE, please type lia to see all available shortcuts.

Markdown

You can use common Markdown syntax to create your course, such as:

1. Lists

2. ordered or

3. unordered

4. ones ...

| Header 1 | Header 2 | | :--------- | :--------- | | Item 1 | Item 2 |

Images:

Extensions

 --{{0}}--

But you can also include other features such as spoken text.

  --{{1}}--

Insert any kind of audio file:

   {{1}}

?audio

 --{{2}}--

Even videos or change the language completely.

   {{2-3}}

!?video

  --{{3 Russian Female}}--

Первоначально создан в 2004 году Джоном Грубером (англ. John Gruber) и Аароном Шварцем. Многие идеи языка были позаимствованы из существующих соглашений по разметке текста в электронных письмах...

{{3}}

Type "voice" to see a list of all available languages.

Styling

The whole text-block should appear in purple color and with a wobbling effect. Which is a bad example, please use it with caution ... ~~ only this is red ;-) ~~

Charts

Use ASCII-Art to draw diagrams:

                                Multiline
1.9 |    DOTS
    |                 ***
  y |               *     *
  - | r r r r r r r*r r r r*r r r r r r r
  a |             *         *
  x |            *           *
  i | B B B B B * B B B B B B * B B B B B
  s |         *                 *
    | *  * *                       * *  *
 -1 +------------------------------------
    0              x-axis               1

Quizzes

A Textquiz

What did the fish say when he hit a concrete wall?

[[dam]]

Multiple Choice

Just add as many points as you wish:

[[X]] Only the **X** marks the correct point.
[[ ]] Empty ones are wrong.
[[X]] ...

Single Choice

Just add as many points as you wish:

[( )] ...
[(X)] <-- Only the **X** is allowed.
[( )] ...

Executable Code

A drawing example, for demonstrating that any JavaScript library can be used, also for drawing.

```javascript // Initialize a Line chart in the container with the ID chart1 new Chartist.Line('#chart1', { labels: [1, 2, 3, 4], series: [[100, 120, 180, 200]] });

// Initialize a Line chart in the container with the ID chart2 new Chartist.Bar('#chart2', { labels: [1, 2, 3, 4], series: [[5, 2, 8, 3]] }); ```

Projects

You can make your code executable and define projects:

``` js -EvalScript.js let who = data.first_name + " " + data.last_name;

if(data.online) { who + " is online"; } else { who + " is NOT online"; } json +Data.json { "first_name" : "Sammy", "last_name" : "Shark", "online" : true } ```

More

Find out what you can even do more with quizzes:

https://liascript.github.io/course/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/liaScript/docs/master/README.md

@ 957df479:13e9e08e

LiaScript Course

Course Main Title

This is your course initialization stub.

Please see the Docs to find out what is possible in LiaScript.

If you want to use instant help in your Atom IDE, please type lia to see all available shortcuts.

Markdown

You can use common Markdown syntax to create your course, such as:

1. Lists

2. ordered or

3. unordered

4. ones ...

| Header 1 | Header 2 | | :--------- | :--------- | | Item 1 | Item 2 |

Images:

Extensions

 --{{0}}--

But you can also include other features such as spoken text.

  --{{1}}--

Insert any kind of audio file:

   {{1}}

?audio

 --{{2}}--

Even videos or change the language completely.

   {{2-3}}

!?video

  --{{3 Russian Female}}--

Первоначально создан в 2004 году Джоном Грубером (англ. John Gruber) и Аароном Шварцем. Многие идеи языка были позаимствованы из существующих соглашений по разметке текста в электронных письмах...

{{3}}

Type "voice" to see a list of all available languages.

Styling

The whole text-block should appear in purple color and with a wobbling effect. Which is a bad example, please use it with caution ... ~~ only this is red ;-) ~~

Charts

Use ASCII-Art to draw diagrams:

                                Multiline
1.9 |    DOTS
    |                 ***
  y |               *     *
  - | r r r r r r r*r r r r*r r r r r r r
  a |             *         *
  x |            *           *
  i | B B B B B * B B B B B B * B B B B B
  s |         *                 *
    | *  * *                       * *  *
 -1 +------------------------------------
    0              x-axis               1

Quizzes

A Textquiz

What did the fish say when he hit a concrete wall?

[[dam]]

Multiple Choice

Just add as many points as you wish:

[[X]] Only the **X** marks the correct point.
[[ ]] Empty ones are wrong.
[[X]] ...

Single Choice

Just add as many points as you wish:

[( )] ...
[(X)] <-- Only the **X** is allowed.
[( )] ...

Executable Code

A drawing example, for demonstrating that any JavaScript library can be used, also for drawing.

```javascript // Initialize a Line chart in the container with the ID chart1 new Chartist.Line('#chart1', { labels: [1, 2, 3, 4], series: [[100, 120, 180, 200]] });

// Initialize a Line chart in the container with the ID chart2 new Chartist.Bar('#chart2', { labels: [1, 2, 3, 4], series: [[5, 2, 8, 3]] }); ```

Projects

You can make your code executable and define projects:

``` js -EvalScript.js let who = data.first_name + " " + data.last_name;

if(data.online) { who + " is online"; } else { who + " is NOT online"; } json +Data.json { "first_name" : "Sammy", "last_name" : "Shark", "online" : true } ```

More

Find out what you can even do more with quizzes:

https://liascript.github.io/course/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/liaScript/docs/master/README.md

@ b099870e:f3ba8f5d

When you work for others, you are at their mercy. The own your work; they own you.Your creative spirit is squaded. What keeps you in such position is a fear of having to sink or swim on your own. Instead you should have a greater fear of what will happen to you if you remain dependant on others for power. Your goal in every maneuver in life must be ownership, working the corner for yourself. When it is yours to lose -you are more motivated,more creative,more alive. The ultimate power in life is to be completely self-reliant, completely yourself.

A quote from The 50th Law