@ 6e24af77:b3f1350b

big header

Longer form text goes here

More text and the options we have bold italic underlined code ~~strike~~ ^sup _sub

some code

a quote

---

a list of some items

• t
• t2
• t3

more lists

1. a
2. b
3. c

smaller header

even smaller

more

aa

bb

| header | table header 1 | 2 | 3 | | :----- | -------------- | :----: | ----: | | normal | left | center | right | | normal | left | center | right | | | | | |

some code is here

Image is here

youtube link directive custom is below

::youtube{#5W-jtbbh3eA}

@ 70e6b44a:7c78b8e9

the uva is a fruit.

@ 70e6b44a:7c78b8e9

the goiaba is a fruit.

@ 70e6b44a:7c78b8e9

the banana is a fruit.

@ 70e6b44a:7c78b8e9

qwuheiuqwgbeikqgo487gqilergv8aqo4gwiluvgrusvflkisaegbrliusebrf

@ 5601570c:444da7cc

hey

@ 79be667e:16f81798

hey

@ e31e84c4:77bbabc0

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

Fiduciary duty is the obligation to act in the client’s best interests at all times, prioritizing their needs above the advisor’s own, ensuring honesty, transparency, and avoiding conflicts of interest in all recommendations and actions.

This is something all advisors in the BFAN take very seriously; after all, we are legally required to do so. For the average advisor this is a fairly easy box to check. All you essentially have to do is have someone take a 5-minute risk assessment, fill out an investment policy statement, and then throw them in the proverbial 60/40 portfolio. You have thousands of investment options to choose from and you can reasonably explain how your client is theoretically insulated from any move in the \~markets\~. From the traditional financial advisor perspective, you could justify nearly anything by putting a client into this type of portfolio. All your bases were pretty much covered from return profile, regulatory, compliance, investment options, etc. It was just too easy. It became the household standard and now a meme.

As almost every real bitcoiner knows, the 60/40 portfolio is moving into psyop territory, and many financial advisors get clowned on for defending this relic on bitcoin twitter. I’m going to specifically poke fun at the ‘40’ part of this portfolio.

The ‘40’ represents fixed income, defined as…

An investment type that provides regular, set interest payments, such as bonds or treasury securities, and returns the principal at maturity. It’s generally considered a lower-risk asset class, used to generate stable income and preserve capital.

Historically, this part of the portfolio was meant to weather the volatility in the equity markets and represent the “safe” investments. Typically, some sort of bond.

First and foremost, the fixed income section is most commonly constructed with U.S. Debt. There are a couple main reasons for this. Most financial professionals believe the same fairy tale that U.S. Debt is “risk free” (lol). U.S. debt is also one of the largest and most liquid assets in the market which comes with a lot of benefits.

There are many brilliant bitcoiners in finance and economics that have sounded the alarm on the U.S. debt ticking time bomb. I highly recommend readers explore the work of Greg Foss, Lawrence Lepard, Lyn Alden, and Saifedean Ammous. My very high-level recap of their analysis:

• A bond is a contract in which Party A (the borrower) agrees to repay Party B (the lender) their principal plus interest over time.

• The U.S. government issues bonds (Treasury securities) to finance its operations after tax revenues have been exhausted.

• These are traditionally viewed as “risk-free” due to the government’s historical reliability in repaying its debts and the strength of the U.S. economy

• U.S. bonds are seen as safe because the government has control over the dollar (world reserve asset) and, until recently (20 some odd years), enjoyed broad confidence that it would always honor its debts.

• This perception has contributed to high global demand for U.S. debt but, that is quickly deteriorating.

• The current debt situation raises concerns about sustainability.

• The U.S. has substantial obligations, and without sufficient productivity growth, increasing debt may lead to a cycle where borrowing to cover interest leads to more debt.

• This could result in more reliance on money creation (printing), which can drive inflation and further debt burdens.

In the words of Lyn Alden “Nothing stops this train”

Those obligations are what makes up the 40% of most the fixed income in your portfolio. So essentially you are giving money to one of the worst capital allocators in the world (U.S. Gov’t) and getting paid back with printed money.

As someone who takes their fiduciary responsibility seriously and understands the debt situation we just reviewed, I think it’s borderline negligent to put someone into a classic 60% (equities) / 40% (fixed income) portfolio without serious scrutiny of the client’s financial situation and options available to them. I certainly have my qualms with equities at times, but overall, they are more palatable than the fixed income portion of the portfolio. I don’t like it either, but the money is broken and the unit of account for nearly every equity or fixed income instrument (USD) is fraudulent. It’s a paper mache fade that is quite literally propped up by the money printer.

To briefly be as most charitable as I can – It wasn’t always this way. The U.S. Dollar used to be sound money, we used to have government surplus instead of mathematically certain deficits, The U.S. Federal Government didn’t used to have a money printing addiction, and pre-bitcoin the 60/40 portfolio used to be a quality portfolio management strategy. Those times are gone.

Now the fun part. How does bitcoin fix this?

Bitcoin fixes this indirectly. Understanding investment criteria changes via risk tolerance, age, goals, etc. A client may still have a need for “fixed income” in the most literal definition – Low risk yield. Now you may be thinking that yield is a bad word in bitcoin land, you’re not wrong, so stay with me. Perpetual motion machine crypto yield is fake and largely where many crypto scams originate. However, that doesn’t mean yield in the classic finance sense does not exist in bitcoin, it very literally does. Fortunately for us bitcoiners there are many other smart, driven, and enterprising bitcoiners that understand this problem and are doing something to address it. These individuals are pioneering new possibilities in bitcoin and finance, specifically when it comes to fixed income.

Here are some new developments –

Private Credit Funds – The Build Asset Management Secured Income Fund I is a private credit fund created by Build Asset Management. This fund primarily invests in bitcoin-backed, collateralized business loans originated by Unchained, with a secured structure involving a multi-signature, over-collateralized setup for risk management. Unchained originates loans and sells them to Build, which pools them into the fund, enabling investors to share in the interest income.

Dynamics

• Loan Terms: Unchained issues loans at interest rates around 14%, secured with a 2/3 multi-signature vault backed by a 40% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio.
• Fund Mechanics: Build buys these loans from Unchained, thus providing liquidity to Unchained for further loan originations, while Build manages interest payments to investors in the fund.

Pros

• The fund offers a unique way to earn income via bitcoin-collateralized debt, with protection against rehypothecation and strong security measures, making it attractive for investors seeking exposure to fixed income with bitcoin.

Cons

• The fund is only available to accredited investors, which is a regulatory standard for private credit funds like this.

Corporate Bonds – MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR), a business intelligence company, has leveraged its corporate structure to issue bonds specifically to acquire bitcoin as a reserve asset. This approach allows investors to indirectly gain exposure to bitcoin’s potential upside while receiving interest payments on their bond investments. Some other publicly traded companies have also adopted this strategy, but for the sake of this article we will focus on MSTR as they are the biggest and most vocal issuer.

Dynamics

• Issuance: MicroStrategy has issued senior secured notes in multiple offerings, with terms allowing the company to use the proceeds to purchase bitcoin.

• Interest Rates: The bonds typically carry high-yield interest rates, averaging around 6-8% APR, depending on the specific issuance and market conditions at the time of issuance.

• Maturity: The bonds have varying maturities, with most structured for multi-year terms, offering investors medium-term exposure to bitcoin’s value trajectory through MicroStrategy’s holdings.

Pros

• Indirect Bitcoin exposure with income provides a unique opportunity for investors seeking income from bitcoin-backed debt.

• Bonds issued by MicroStrategy offer relatively high interest rates, appealing for fixed-income investors attracted to the higher risk/reward scenarios.

Cons

• There are credit risks tied to MicroStrategy’s financial health and bitcoin’s performance. A significant drop in bitcoin prices could strain the company’s ability to service debt, increasing credit risk.

• Availability: These bonds are primarily accessible to institutional investors and accredited investors, limiting availability for retail investors.

Interest Payable in Bitcoin – River has introduced an innovative product, bitcoin Interest on Cash, allowing clients to earn interest on their U.S. dollar deposits, with the interest paid in bitcoin.

Dynamics

• Interest Payment: Clients earn an annual interest rate of 3.8% on their cash deposits. The accrued interest is converted to Bitcoin daily and paid out monthly, enabling clients to accumulate Bitcoin over time.

• Security and Accessibility: Cash deposits are insured up to $250,000 through River’s banking partner, Lead Bank, a member of the FDIC. All Bitcoin holdings are maintained in full reserve custody, ensuring that client assets are not lent or leveraged.

Pros

• There are no hidden fees or minimum balance requirements, and clients can withdraw their cash at any time.

• The 3.8% interest rate provides a predictable income stream, akin to traditional fixed-income investments.

Cons

• While the interest rate is fixed, the value of the Bitcoin received as interest can fluctuate, introducing potential variability in the investment’s overall return.

• Interest rate payments are on the lower side

Admittedly, this is a very small list, however, these types of investments are growing more numerous and meaningful. The reality is the existing options aren’t numerous enough to service every client that has a need for fixed income exposure. I challenge advisors to explore innovative options for fixed income exposure outside of sovereign debt, as that is most certainly a road to nowhere. It is my wholehearted belief and call to action that we need more options to help clients across the risk and capital allocation spectrum access a sound money standard.

Additional Resources

• River: The future of saving is here: Earn 3.8% on cash. Paid in Bitcoin.

• Onramp: Bitcoin, The Emergent Asset Class

• MicroStrategy: MicroStrategy Announces Pricing of Offering of Convertible Senior Notes

---

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

@ 79be667e:16f81798

goodbye

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Pequenos problemas que o Estado cria para a sociedade e que não são sempre lembrados

- **vale-transporte**: transferir o custo com o transporte do funcionário para um terceiro o estimula a morar longe de onde trabalha, já que morar perto é normalmente mais caro e a economia com transporte é inexistente.
- **atestado médico**: o direito a faltar o trabalho com atestado médico cria a exigência desse atestado para todas as situações, substituindo o livre acordo entre patrão e empregado e sobrecarregando os médicos e postos de saúde com visitas desnecessárias de assalariados resfriados.
- **prisões**: com dinheiro mal-administrado, burocracia e péssima alocação de recursos -- problemas que empresas privadas em competição (ou mesmo sem qualquer competição) saberiam resolver muito melhor -- o Estado fica sem presídios, com os poucos existentes entupidos, muito acima de sua alocação máxima, e com isto, segundo a bizarra corrente de responsabilidades que culpa o juiz que condenou o criminoso por sua morte na cadeia, juízes deixam de condenar à prisão os bandidos, soltando-os na rua.
- **justiça**: entrar com processos é grátis e isto faz proliferar a atividade dos advogados que se dedicam a criar problemas judiciais onde não seria necessário e a entupir os tribunais, impedindo-os de fazer o que mais deveriam fazer.
- **justiça**: como a justiça só obedece às leis e ignora acordos pessoais, escritos ou não, as pessoas não fazem acordos, recorrem sempre à justiça estatal, e entopem-na de assuntos que seriam muito melhor resolvidos entre vizinhos.
- **leis civis**: as leis criadas pelos parlamentares ignoram os costumes da sociedade e são um incentivo a que as pessoas não respeitem nem criem normas sociais -- que seriam maneiras mais rápidas, baratas e satisfatórias de resolver problemas.
- **leis de trãnsito**: quanto mais leis de trânsito, mais serviço de fiscalização são delegados aos policiais, que deixam de combater crimes por isto (afinal de contas, eles não querem de fato arriscar suas vidas combatendo o crime, a fiscalização é uma excelente desculpa para se esquivarem a esta responsabilidade).
- **financiamento educacional**: é uma espécie de subsídio às faculdades privadas que faz com que se criem cursos e mais cursos que são cada vez menos recheados de algum conhecimento ou técnica útil e cada vez mais inúteis.
- **leis de tombamento**: são um incentivo a que o dono de qualquer área ou construção "histórica" destrua todo e qualquer vestígio de história que houver nele antes que as autoridades descubram, o que poderia não acontecer se ele pudesse, por exemplo, usar, mostrar e se beneficiar da história daquele local sem correr o risco de perder, de fato, a sua propriedade.
- **zoneamento urbano**: torna as cidades mais espalhadas, criando uma necessidade gigantesca de carros, ônibus e outros meios de transporte para as pessoas se locomoverem das zonas de moradia para as zonas de trabalho.
- **zoneamento urbano**: faz com que as pessoas percam horas no trânsito todos os dias, o que é, além de um desperdício, um atentado contra a sua saúde, que estaria muito melhor servida numa caminhada diária entre a casa e o trabalho.
- **zoneamento urbano**: torna ruas e as casas menos seguras criando zonas enormes, tanto de residências quanto de indústrias, onde não há movimento de gente alguma.
- **escola obrigatória + currículo escolar nacional**: emburrece todas as crianças.
- **leis contra trabalho infantil**: tira das crianças a oportunidade de aprender ofícios úteis e levar um dinheiro para ajudar a família.
- **licitações**: como não existem os critérios do mercado para decidir qual é o melhor prestador de serviço, criam-se comissões de pessoas que vão decidir coisas. isto incentiva os prestadores de serviço que estão concorrendo na licitação a tentar comprar os membros dessas comissões. isto, fora a corrupção, gera problemas reais: __(i)__ a escolha dos serviços acaba sendo a pior possível, já que a empresa prestadora que vence está claramente mais dedicada a comprar comissões do que a fazer um bom trabalho (este problema afeta tantas áreas, desde a construção de estradas até a qualidade da merenda escolar, que é impossível listar aqui); __(ii)__ o processo corruptor acaba, no longo prazo, eliminando as empresas que prestavam e deixando para competir apenas as corruptas, e a qualidade tende a piorar progressivamente.
- **cartéis**: o Estado em geral cria e depois fica refém de vários grupos de interesse. o caso dos taxistas contra o Uber é o que está na moda hoje (e o que mostra como os Estados se comportam da mesma forma no mundo todo).
- **multas**: quando algum indivíduo ou empresa comete uma fraude financeira, ou causa algum dano material involuntário, as vítimas do caso são as pessoas que sofreram o dano ou perderam dinheiro, mas o Estado tem sempre leis que prevêem multas para os responsáveis. A justiça estatal é sempre muito rígida e rápida na aplicação dessas multas, mas relapsa e vaga no que diz respeito à indenização das vítimas. O que em geral acontece é que o Estado aplica uma enorme multa ao responsável pelo mal, retirando deste os recursos que dispunha para indenizar as vítimas, e se retira do caso, deixando estas desamparadas.
- **desapropriação**: o Estado pode pegar qualquer propriedade de qualquer pessoa mediante uma indenização que é necessariamente inferior ao valor da propriedade para o seu presente dono (caso contrário ele a teria vendido voluntariamente).
- **seguro-desemprego**: se há, por exemplo, um prazo mínimo de 1 ano para o sujeito ter direito a receber seguro-desemprego, isto o incentiva a planejar ficar apenas 1 ano em cada emprego (ano este que será sucedido por um período de desemprego remunerado), matando todas as possibilidades de aprendizado ou aquisição de experiência naquela empresa específica ou ascensão hierárquica.
- **previdência**: a previdência social tem todos os defeitos de cálculo do mundo, e não importa muito ela ser uma forma horrível de poupar dinheiro, porque ela tem garantias bizarras de longevidade fornecidas pelo Estado, além de ser compulsória. Isso serve para criar no imaginário geral a idéia da __aposentadoria__, uma época mágica em que todos os dias serão finais de semana. A idéia da aposentadoria influencia o sujeito a não se preocupar em ter um emprego que faça sentido, mas sim em ter um trabalho qualquer, que o permita se aposentar.
- **regulamentação impossível**: milhares de coisas são proibidas, há regulamentações sobre os aspectos mais mínimos de cada empreendimento ou construção ou espaço. se todas essas regulamentações fossem exigidas não haveria condições de produção e todos morreriam. portanto, elas não são exigidas. porém, o Estado, ou um agente individual imbuído do poder estatal pode, se desejar, exigi-las todas de um cidadão inimigo seu. qualquer pessoa pode viver a vida inteira sem cumprir nem 10% das regulamentações estatais, mas viverá também todo esse tempo com medo de se tornar um alvo de sua exigência, num estado de terror psicológico.
- **perversão de critérios**: para muitas coisas sobre as quais a sociedade normalmente chegaria a um valor ou comportamento "razoável" espontaneamente, o Estado dita regras. estas regras muitas vezes não são obrigatórias, são mais "sugestões" ou limites, como o salário mínimo, ou as 44 horas semanais de trabalho. a sociedade, porém, passa a usar esses valores como se fossem o normal. são raras, por exemplo, as ofertas de emprego que fogem à regra das 44h semanais.
- **inflação**: subir os preços é difícil e constrangedor para as empresas, pedir aumento de salário é difícil e constrangedor para o funcionário. a inflação força as pessoas a fazer isso, mas o aumento não é automático, como alguns economistas podem pensar (enquanto alguns outros ficam muito satisfeitos de que esse processo seja demorado e difícil).
- **inflação**: a inflação destrói a capacidade das pessoas de julgar preços entre concorrentes usando a própria memória.
- **inflação**: a inflação destrói os cálculos de lucro/prejuízo das empresas e prejudica enormemente as decisões empresariais que seriam baseadas neles.
- **inflação**: a inflação redistribui a riqueza dos mais pobres e mais afastados do sistema financeiro para os mais ricos, os bancos e as megaempresas.
- **inflação**: a inflação estimula o endividamento e o consumismo.
- **lixo:** ao prover coleta e armazenamento de lixo "grátis para todos" o Estado incentiva a criação de lixo. se tivessem que pagar para que recolhessem o seu lixo, as pessoas (e conseqüentemente as empresas) se empenhariam mais em produzir coisas usando menos plástico, menos embalagens, menos sacolas.
- **leis contra crimes financeiros:** ao criar legislação para dificultar acesso ao sistema financeiro por parte de criminosos a dificuldade e os custos para acesso a esse mesmo sistema pelas pessoas de bem cresce absurdamente, levando a um percentual enorme de gente incapaz de usá-lo, para detrimento de todos -- e no final das contas os grandes criminosos ainda conseguem burlar tudo.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Knappheit statt Slogans: eine Dosis ökonomischer Realität für die politischen Debatten

Die EU-Wirtschaft steht vor zahlreichen Herausforderungen, von hohen Energiekosten bis hin zu geringer Produktivität. Doch hinter der offiziellen Rhetorik verbirgt sich eine Annahme, die kaum hinterfragt wird: dass der grüne Wandel automatisch zu Wirtschaftswachstum und mehr Wohlstand führen wird. Aber stimmt das wirklich?

Eine englische Fassung dieses Textes finden Sie hier.

In Deutschland, das wieder einmal das Etikett „Kranker Mann Europas" tragen muss, kämpft Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz vor der Wahl im Februar mit alarmierend niedrigen Vertrauenswerten. Aber vielleicht ist das gar nicht so überraschend. ****Die deutsche Industrieproduktion ist rückläufig, seit die grüne Agenda in Mode gekommen ist. ****Die energieintensive Produktion ist in nur wenigen Jahren um ganze 20 Prozent zurückgegangen. Volkswagen schließt Fabriken, Thyssenkrupp entlässt massiv Mitarbeiter und mehr als drei Millionen Rentner sind von Armut bedroht .

Wenn dies Europas „Mann auf dem Mond"-Moment ist, wie EU-Kommissarin von der Leyen ****es 2019 ausdrückte ****, dann ist das nicht viel, womit man angeben kann . Zumindest nicht, wenn man kein Sadist ist.

Der Bericht des ehemaligen EZB-Chefs Mario Draghi über die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der EU wurde bereits früher diskutiert. Eines der Probleme, auf die hingewiesen wurde, war, dass europäische Unternehmen erheblich höhere Energiekosten haben als ihre amerikanischen Konkurrenten. Die Strompreise sind zwei- bis dreimal so hoch und die Erdgaspreise vier- bis fünfmal so hoch.

Deutschland ist vielleicht am schlimmsten dran, was zum Teil an der Entscheidung der ehemaligen Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel liegt, vollständig aus der Atomkraft auszusteigen (eine Entscheidung, die nicht nur keine breite Unterstützung fand , sondern die sie auch nicht als Fehler eingestehen will). Die Sabotage der Nord Stream 2 hat die Situation noch verschlimmert.

Ohne Realkapital kein wirtschaftlicher Wohlstand

Der Ausstieg aus der Atomenergie in Deutschland ist ein Beispiel dafür, wie politische Entscheidungen zur Verringerung der Kapazität der Wirtschaft beigetragen haben. Dasselbe gilt für die Sabotage der Nord Stream. Realkapital, wie Gebäude, Maschinen und Ausrüstung, ist für die Produktivität der Wirtschaft von entscheidender Bedeutung (z. B. Kennzahlen wie das BIP pro Arbeitsstunde). Ein größerer und effizienterer Kapitalstock ermöglicht die Herstellung von mehr Waren und Dienstleistungen mit der gleichen Menge an Arbeit, was zu mehr Produktion, höheren Löhnen und größerem materiellen Wohlstand führt. Das ist grundlegende Ökonomie. ****Wenn andererseits Realkapital aufgrund politischer Entscheidungen für obsolet erklärt wird, wie im Fall der Abschaltung der Atomkraft, verringert dies die Kapazität der Wirtschaft. ****Dasselbe gilt, wenn Realkapital zerstört wird, wie dies bei Nord Stream der Fall war.

Weiteres reales Betriebskapital wird zurückgestellt

EU-Kommissarin von der Leyen verspricht Besserung. Sie scheint überzeugt, dass der Niedergang der EU durch eine Verdreifachung der grünen Ziele des Blocks umgekehrt werden kann, und hat die Dekarbonisierung als eine der drei wichtigsten Säulen eines neuen „Wettbewerbsfähigkeitskompasses" aufgeführt. Wenn die Realität nicht den Erwartungen entspricht, kann man immer noch „Strg+Alt+Slogan" drücken und hoffen, dass niemand merkt, dass sich nichts verbessert hat.

Ihre Pläne bedeuten jedoch, dass bestehendes und derzeit funktionierendes Realkapital in Zukunft in noch größerem Umfang abgeschrieben wird. Dies lässt sich mit einer Nation vergleichen, die Jahr für Jahr ihre Naturschutzgebiete schrittweise erweitert. Tatsächlich geschieht dies auch. Der Kunming-Montreal-Rahmen für die Artenvielfalt sieht vor, dass bis 2030 30 % aller Flächen an Land und im Meer geschützt werden müssen. Ein Land, das derzeit weniger schützt, muss daher zusätzliche Gebiete identifizieren, die geschützt werden können. ****Der Prozess, 30 % aller Flächen zu schützen, wird wahrscheinlich das Produktionspotenzial der Wirtschaft verringern. ****Mit schrumpfenden Feldern wird es weniger Karotten geben (es sei denn, es werden bedeutende technologische Fortschritte erzielt).

Konsequenzen für Sicherheitspolitik und -vorsorge

Auf dem derzeitigen Weg wird mehr Realkapital auf die lange Bank geschoben, was weitreichende Folgen haben kann, nicht zuletzt für unsere Sicherheitspolitik. Wenn Russland beispielsweise Artilleriegeschosse etwa dreimal schneller produzieren kann, und zwar zu Kosten, die etwa ein Viertel der Kosten betragen, die die westlichen Verbündeten der Ukraine dafür aufbringen , dann ist klar, dass dies sicherheitspolitische Konsequenzen hat. Ebenso wird es negative sicherheitspolitische Konsequenzen haben, wenn die Strompreise in Deutschland fünfmal höher sind als in China, was derzeit der Fall ist . Im Vergleich zur EU hat China tatsächlich einen höheren Kohlendioxidausstoß pro Kopf, wobei der Unterschied den ****verfügbaren Daten zufolge etwa 50 % beträgt ****. Bereinigt um den internationalen Handel emittiert China pro Kopf 10 % mehr als Schweden .

Auch eine Perspektive der Vorsorge ist zu finden. Anfang der 1990er Jahre produzierten schwedische Landwirte fast 75 % der Nahrungsmittel des Landes. Heute ist Schwedens Bevölkerung deutlich gewachsen, aber die Nahrungsmittelproduktion hat nicht Schritt gehalten. Jeder zweite Bissen wird heute importiert. In Schweden können wir uns sogar rühmen, dass wir uns nicht einmal mit der einfachsten aller Feldfrüchte versorgen können -- Kartoffeln . Können wir wirklich sicher sein, dass deutlich erweiterte Naturschutzgebiete, wie sie im Kunming-Montreal-Rahmenwerk für Schweden vorgeschrieben sind, unsere Nahrungsmittelvorsorge nicht noch weiter verschlechtern werden?

Erinnert an kleine Gnome

Ich erinnere mich an eine Folge der 90er-Jahre-Serie South Park, in der kleine Gnome Unterhosen sammeln . Als sie nach ihrem Plan gefragt wurden, beschrieben sie ihre Methode:

1. Unterhosen sammeln
2. ???
3. profitieren!

Übersetzt auf die grüne **Energiewende **:

1. reales Kapital zerstören und Land und Meer erhalten
2. ???
3. wirtschaftlicher Wohlstand!

Was kann sich die EU wirklich leisten?

In der Wirtschaft geht es im Grunde um die Verwaltung knapper Ressourcen, was viele Menschen offenbar vergessen haben. Es ist höchste Zeit, zu hinterfragen, was sich die EU wirklich leisten kann. Können wir es uns wirklich leisten, uns für einen Krieg gegen Russland, China und den Iran zu rüsten und uns gleichzeitig mit grünen Versprechen von reduzierten Kohlendioxidemissionen und erhöhter Artenvielfalt selbst die Hände zu binden? Und das in einer Situation, in der die nächste US-Regierung wahrscheinlich massiv in die Steigerung ihrer Wettbewerbsvorteile durch Deregulierung, niedrigere Energiepreise, Steuersenkungen und einen Rückzug aus dem Pariser Abkommen investieren wird ?

Als von der Leyen für das deutsche Militär verantwortlich war, sei die Lage " katastrophal " gewesen. Alle sechs U-Boote des Landes waren außer Gefecht gesetzt . Zeitweise war kein einziges der 14 Transportflugzeuge des Landes flugfähig. Bei Übungen mussten deutsche Soldaten Besen statt Gewehren verwenden .

Hoffentlich wird von der Leyen in ihrem Umgang mit der Wirtschaft, der Verteidigung und der Abwehrbereitschaft der EU mehr Erfolg zeigen als in ihrer Rolle als deutsche Verteidigungsministerin. Es könnte jedoch auch an der Zeit sein, dass mehr Menschen die vorherrschenden Narrative, die unsere Politik prägen, in Frage stellen. Was, wenn die Fakten nicht ganz mit der Wahrheit übereinstimmen, die uns erzählt wird?

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Músicas grudentas e conversas

Uma vez que você ouviu uma música grudenta e ela volta, inteira, com toda a melodia e a harmonia, muitos dias depois, contra a sua vontade. Mas uma conversa é impossível de lembrar. Por quê?

@ 20986fb8:cdac21b3

In this edition, we are pleased to speak with Luthando nostr:npub10vudmjqhr8kn2kv2pxhezt2h5t5c9zauwq8qr56nhdn64yacsqyqf08djm leader of the Bitcoin Ekasi community, about how they are using Bitcoin to transform payment systems, savings habits, and cross-border remittances in a South African township, while fostering digital currency education and boosting local economic trust.

---

YakiHonne: Luthando. We really appreciate you coming in. YakiHonne is a decentralized media client built on the Nostr protocol that enables freedom of speech through technology. It empowers creators to create their own voice, assets, and features. It also allows features like smart widgets, verified notes, and focuses on long-form articles. today. we'll be exploring more about your community.Can you tell us a bit about yourself? What do you do, and what’s your role in your community?

Luthando：I’m Luthando, a project community leader at Bitcoin Ekasi. My role includes onboarding township shops to help them adopt Bitcoin as a payment method. I also manage staff records, tracking workdays and paid leave for team members involved in the project. Additionally, I conduct interviews and collaborate with a supervisor to share insights and experiences about Bitcoin. This work is part of my efforts with Bitcoin Ekasi.

YakiHonne: You're really doing a lot of work in the Bitcoin ecosystem，what sparked your interest in Bitcoin? And what motivated you to create a community around it?

Luthando：When I was working as a safety coach at Safeacase, Herman introduced me to Bitcoin. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Safeacase, which relied on donations, faced severe financial challenges. This led to the launch of the Bitcoin Ekasi Project, where I helped township shops adopt Bitcoin as a payment method. With limited funds, I transitioned from receiving a fiat salary to earning in Bitcoin. Bitcoin transformed my mindset, making me realize it is the future of money. This realization inspired me to travel the world and explore new countries.

YakiHonne: Great. I really admire the enthusiasm you have for Bitcoin.Can you share a brief history of how you built your community and attracted members? What methods or advertisements did you use to onboard them?

Luthando：We host monthly Bitcoin movie nights to engage the community, running from February to December starting next year. We promote the events with posters in town, shops, and clinics, inviting residents to join. During the movie nights, participants use Bitcoin we provide to purchase popcorn and drinks, gaining hands-on experience with the technology. Luthando：And our Bitcoin center features a thrift shop and a small Bitcoin ATM. Community members can exchange fiat for Bitcoin using the ATM and use it to purchase clothing from the shop. We also offer Bitcoin courses with 14 students attending classes five days a week. To encourage attendance, students are rewarded with Bitcoin for consistent participation. Similarly, in the “Safer Kids” program, children who maintain a 70% attendance rate or higher also receive Bitcoin rewards. Luthando：To further promote Bitcoin adoption in the community, we painted Bitcoin-themed logos on 34 shops and paid the owners in Bitcoin, which they can use in local shops. This initiative not only spreads awareness but also provides the community with practical opportunities to use Bitcoin.

YakiHonne: Yeah, we are pushing Bitcoin adoption so hard this time. It's really great.What principles guide your community, and how do you ensure trust and reliability in your discussions?

Luthando：I was born in eastern South Africa, and my parents moved here around 1996. The community knows me well and trusts that I wouldn’t introduce anything fraudulent. Since 2010, we’ve been working in this township, especially helping children, building over a decade of trust. I explain to the community that we aim to bring value through Bitcoin, encouraging them to save in Bitcoin instead of fiat. As a result, the community has great trust in our Bitcoin Ekasi team.

YakiHonne: How do you educate your members and keep them updated on Bitcoin developments? You mentioned having five weekly meetups to onboard members, but what other methods do you use to educate them and keep them informed about the Bitcoin ecosystem?

Luthando：We use the Felly app to communicate with community members and keep them updated. At the Ekasi Center, we host quizzes to encourage participation. For example, the first attendees can earn 5,000 sats, motivating them to regularly engage with the Felly app. Although we initially tried a few other methods that didn't really involve them getting Sats, its impact was limited as many people in the township seek quick financial returns and often don’t return after their first visit. To address this, we host movie nights as a more engaging way to promote Bitcoin education. During these events, we screen Bitcoin-related films, allowing community members to learn about Bitcoin in a fun and relaxed setting.

YakiHonne: It's truly captivating and highly insightful.How does your community collaborate with the global Bitcoin ecosystem? Specifically, how does it engage with the broader worldwide Bitcoin community, and which partnership has been of more significant impact on Bitcoin Ekasi?

Luthando：We have established a strong partnership with Bitcoin Beach, which provided crucial support in the creation of the Bitcoin Ekasi project. Currently, we are planning to build a community center in the township, earning the trust and support of both Bitcoin Beach and the local government of Mossel Bay. The community center will serve as a multifunctional space for events like weddings and more. As one of the earliest Bitcoin adoption projects in Africa, Bitcoin Ekasi has inspired other countries to follow suit, viewing us as a model for building sustainable Bitcoin communities.

YakiHonne: How do you collaborate with Bitcoin communities and organizations outside South Africa? What partnerships or interactions do you have with other global Bitcoin communities?

Luthando: We collaborate with other Bitcoin projects through community initiatives. For example, we paint logos on local community shops and pay the owners 7000Sats per week. This approach has helped us build connections with projects outside South Africa. One notable example is our assistance to the Bitcoin Dua project in Africa, helping them establish a Bitcoin circular economy. We also supported the Bitcoin Loxin project in Cape Town, South Africa, in launching their Bitcoin circular economy. Through these collaborations, we have developed strong relationships with other Bitcoin communities.

YakiHonne: We’d like to understand the challenges you faced when starting the community, as well as the challenges the community has encountered？

Luthando: One of the main challenges is convincing members that Bitcoin is not a scam. Many people are skeptical about Bitcoin, fearing they might lose their money. Additionally, saving is not a common habit within the community, even with fiat currency. I often explain the importance of saving in Bitcoin, emphasizing how it can safeguard their financial security. However, changing deeply ingrained mindsets has proven to be quite difficult. Another challenge is the limited level of education in the community. Even those who own smartphones often struggle to use them effectively. This lack of familiarity extends to using Bitcoin wallets, with many people finding it challenging to navigate wallet usage, especially in shops. Lastly, I feel like I’m working around the clock. Even outside of work hours, people come to my house seeking assistance, such as exchanging Bitcoin for fiat. While I’m happy to help, the constant demands can feel overwhelming at times, making it seem as though I’m working every day, including weekends.

YakiHonne: and how you managed to overcome them？

Luthando: Overcoming these challenges is not easy. I can't say that I've fully managed to resolve them, but I do my best to address them. Fortunately, I have a colleague who assists me, although he’s currently out of town. He helps manage some of the workload, especially in dealing with local community members and providing them with the support they need.

YakiHonne: I'm really interested in the issue of people thinking Bitcoin is a scam. Could you elaborate on that? What specific steps have you taken to demonstrate that Bitcoin is reliable and not a scam?

Luthando: Many shop owners initially believe Bitcoin is a scam and refuse to accept it. To address their doubts, I demonstrate Bitcoin's legitimacy through practical examples. First, I help them download a Bitcoin wallet and post about it on X, receiving small tips from Bitcoin enthusiasts worldwide. I then use these tips to showcase Bitcoin's real-world applications. For instance, I use Bitrefill to purchase mobile airtime or fuel vouchers for them, highlighting Bitcoin's utility in daily life. I also mention South African restaurants like Steers that accept Bitcoin and even place food orders using Bitcoin to show its usability. Additionally, I demonstrate withdrawing cash from a crypto ATM using Bitcoin, further proving that it is a reliable financial tool and not a scam.

YakiHonne: You've done a lot of work in South Africa. I can imagine the effort, the pain and the stress.What initiatives has the community taken to promote Bitcoin adoption, and what results have these efforts achieved?

Luthando: At first, I never imagined we would reach this point. Now, many people frequently come to my home to ask how to buy Bitcoin. For example, this week, a man from Nigeria wanted to purchase Bitcoin worth 5,000 units. I explained the process to him and recommended using a hardware wallet for securely storing large amounts of Bitcoin. He used to struggle with sending money back home, but now he has realized the convenience of Bitcoin. In October last year, I helped two stores owned by Nigerians adopt Bitcoin payments. Since then, this practice has spread within the community, and more people, especially shop owners, have developed an interest in Bitcoin. They ask about its low transaction fees and have recognized it as an efficient solution for cross-border remittances. Initially, some shop owners were skeptical about Bitcoin, but they eventually started saving with it. Today, many of them have accumulated significant Bitcoin savings for their families and children, and they often express their gratitude for introducing Bitcoin to the community. Overall, the Bitcoin adoption project has had a profound impact here. We have educated the community about Bitcoin’s long-term savings value, and many people are now satisfied with this initiative and optimistic about the future.

YakiHonne: It’s clear you’ve achieved tangible results from your efforts. Looking ahead, what are your community's goals for the next 6 to 12 months? How do you plan to achieve them?

Luthando: For Bitcoin Ekasi, one of our main goals is to establish a dedicated Bitcoin Ekasi Center. This center would serve as a hub to educate people about Bitcoin on a frequent basis. We have already started working with a local school in the township, recruiting students and introducing teachers to Bitcoin. Our vision is to integrate Bitcoin education into the school’s curriculum, similar to what has been done in El Salvador. By incorporating Bitcoin as part of their regular subjects, students can gain foundational knowledge about Bitcoin and its potential uses. Ultimately, we aim for teachers to become advocates who can confidently teach children about Bitcoin, empowering the next generation with essential financial literacy skills.

YakiHonne: Thank you so much! I think most of my questions have been answered. I’m really glad to see Bitcoin enthusiasts with a clear focus on Bitcoin. As you said, Bitcoin is the future, and I truly appreciate your enthusiasm for it.

Luthando: Bitcoin is truly the future. We want to see this township transformed into something more modern, rather than its current state. I hope to see more parents saving some Bitcoin for their children. In our community, most kids receive a monthly government allowance of $50 starting from the age of one. I often suggest to parents that they set aside half of that allowance to buy Bitcoin for their child. If they save consistently from age one to 18, the value could grow significantly as Bitcoin appreciates. I’m already doing this for my own child so that he will have savings as he grows up.

YakiHonne: Bitcoin is the future. Its value continues to grow steadily over time. Thank you so much for today’s conversation; we are truly honored. Your sharing of such rich experiences has been incredibly insightful for us. I’ve learned that using movie events to engage more people is an excellent idea, and we plan to start trying it out soon. Once again, thank you for your time and for sharing with us!

@ 6f1a5274:3b3bb9c4

FB88là một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến nổi bật tại Việt Nam, được biết đến với những tính năng ưu việt và trải nghiệm người dùng vượt trội. Nền tảng này đã nhanh chóng thu hút đông đảo người tham gia nhờ vào sự đa dạng trong các hoạt động giải trí và dịch vụ hỗ trợ khách hàng tận tâm. FB88 mang đến cho người dùng những trải nghiệm thú vị và mới mẻ, đồng thời chú trọng đến sự bảo mật và an toàn của thông tin cá nhân.

Giao Diện Thân Thiện và Dễ Sử Dụng

FB88 cung cấp một giao diện đơn giản và dễ sử dụng, giúp người dùng dễ dàng điều hướng và tìm kiếm các chương trình, sự kiện mình yêu thích. Với thiết kế hiện đại và các tính năng được tối ưu hóa, người tham gia có thể dễ dàng tham gia vào các hoạt động mà mình chọn mà không gặp phải bất kỳ khó khăn nào. Giao diện này không chỉ phù hợp với người dùng mới mà còn rất tiện lợi cho những ai đã quen với các nền tảng trực tuyến.

Đa Dạng Các Hoạt Động Giải Trí

Một trong những lý do khiến FB88 được yêu thích là sự đa dạng trong các hoạt động giải trí mà nền tảng này cung cấp. Từ các chương trình thể thao, các trò chơi trí tuệ, đến các sự kiện văn hóa đặc sắc, FB88 luôn mang lại cho người tham gia nhiều lựa chọn. Mỗi hoạt động đều được tổ chức với quy mô và chất lượng cao, mang lại những giờ phút thư giãn tuyệt vời cho người dùng.

Chăm Sóc Khách Hàng Chuyên Nghiệp

FB88 đặc biệt chú trọng đến dịch vụ khách hàng. Đội ngũ hỗ trợ khách hàng của nền tảng này luôn sẵn sàng giúp đỡ người dùng 24/7, giải đáp mọi thắc mắc và xử lý các vấn đề trong thời gian ngắn nhất. Dịch vụ khách hàng của FB88 luôn được người dùng đánh giá cao về sự tận tâm và chuyên nghiệp.

Bảo Mật và An Toàn Tuyệt Đối

Bảo mật là yếu tố quan trọng tại FB88. Nền tảng này sử dụng các công nghệ bảo mật tiên tiến để bảo vệ thông tin cá nhân và các giao dịch tài chính của người tham gia. Nhờ vào hệ thống bảo mật hiện đại, người dùng có thể yên tâm khi tham gia vào các hoạt động và giao dịch trên nền tảng mà không phải lo lắng về vấn đề bảo mật.

Kết Luận

FB88 là một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến tuyệt vời, mang đến cho người dùng những trải nghiệm đa dạng và hấp dẫn. Với giao diện dễ sử dụng, các hoạt động thú vị, bảo mật cao và dịch vụ chăm sóc khách hàng chuyên nghiệp, FB88 xứng đáng là lựa chọn hàng đầu cho những ai tìm kiếm một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến đáng tin cậy và chất lượng.

@ 9be5722a:6e939518

この記事は、Nostr Advent Calendar 2024 🗓️24日目の記事です

• 12/23 opensats税務署編　著：@mono さん
• 12/24 準備中　著：@showV3 さん

本記事は技術的な知見などを含まない感想文です。

< br>タグが使えることを知らずに書いて調整していたので

不自然な改行が多いですが、最後まで読んでいただけると嬉しいです

内容目次

• 自己紹介
• Before Nostr
• Hello Nostr!
• Nostrの魅力: 自由と哲学
• おわりに

---

自己紹介

1浪目の浪人生です。目標は天文学者です。自立したいので来年は大学生です。

天文台があるのと南国育ちのため雪が降ってほしいのとで東北地方の大学を受験します。

---

Before Nostr

Nostrを始める前、SNSは主にInstagramとTwitterを使っていました

Instagramはリア友とのコミュニケーションツールとしての利用が主で

キラキラ大学生活と浪人生活とのギャップに耐えられないだろうと考えて3月末にアカウント停止。

TwitterはROM専で情報が手早く得られるツールとして利用していたつもりですが

全くいらない情報ばかりなこと、見ていない期間のメンタルの調子が良いことがわかり

情報収集の手段を見直した上でTwitterを削除し、そのうち　

大学生なったらホームページつくってみたい！ブログやろう！

と考えるようになったため、受験のためにもSNSを完全にやめることにしました

SNSに費やしていた休憩時間を使い、積読を解消する作業や英字新聞の購読を始めました

---

Hello Nostr!

Nostrとの出会い

Nostrに出会ったきっかけは英文記事に

"Blueskyを離れたJack Dorsey"

という内容があり、Jack Dorseyが何をしているのか調べたことです

（Jack DorseyのWikipedia薄すぎ........のすたー？のすとら？）

キャリアの最後にNostrとありましたのでこいつを検索窓にぽいっ

そしてkojiraさんの記事に出会い

Nostr /ˈnɒstʃrə/

というよくわからない名前をした分散SNSプロトコルを知りました

さらに検索するとScrapboxがあったので誘導に乗るままこちらのかわいいサイトへ

そして私はnostterから生まれました(?)

nostr:nevent1qqspgrhygeu55pjnhyysaxd09dhdhhtu8w0dshxkf2xywelalxu70ecrfeuej わけもわからず初投稿　irisからだったかな？
インスタしか投稿したことないので何気にミニブログ初投稿

Nostr村で過ごした1ヶ月

Zap解放と認証バッジ

まずはすべての機能を解放させようと思い、zapの設定に取り組みました。 nostr:nevent1qqsxj6w23mck4nwz204ftsnhqd32pcly44y6gcf9lvu403ahf8qrptc38n7nl scrapboxを参考に難なくクリア

しかしこの日から1週間は勉強の合間にドメイン認証に挑戦するも苦戦。。。 nostr:nevent1qqsz8jke4xazhx8arpx6jxd96a0f6k5rgkaklqwhshu90nkqknh9mtcwsmw06 原因はCORSの設定ミスだとおもったのですが

{"names":{"tansaibow":"公開鍵"}}

とすべきところを

{"name":{"tansaibow":"公開鍵"}}

としていたことが原因でした。

コピペしたつもりなんだけどなあ（ ; ; ） nostr:nevent1qqsv2xj5z3yc3x9gk6x2g98x3x24a627n3mln9rlpm88gsvgmnde93c3nz2hc ここらから1ヶ月間Time Lineを斜め読みしつつちょくちょく言葉を投げてみます

Hello Nostrシリーズ nostr:nevent1qqsdwe46ykmyck9hxy4wjfx43mzhv92p70c5ytm9z8z6wak47460tzgs6na4e 1週間くらいでNostrがなんだか好きになってきたので書籍も購入しました

受験が終わったら再度、手を動かしながら読みます

今思えば紙で購入しておけばもっと嬉しくなれたと後悔しています

崇徳さんのイラストがすきです

LUMILUMI nostr:nevent1qqsqfzpps79nv8cht3xlpdzyx5jcy0kyme72sav6sgxpg3tra7yqykqyjl5yl nostr:nevent1qqszxqvedp0zaapneptx6xzvmvn7ltmfpz6dx97dctpw5hp90n0lens7cn5gt かわいい

ろぐぼ

28日目にしてはじめてやぶみちゃんからろぐぼをもらいました nostr:nevent1qqstuk49ull23668s5cwmzmzl5p6wjlg0tgt4ctke3nammhm0d5lyxscjxxhf ちなみに初回は失敗しました。初々しくてかわいいですね？

---

Nostrの魅力: 自由と哲学

秘密鍵、OSS、冗長構成！ 自由が特徴でとてもインターネットらしくてクールです。

Nostrこそがインターネット！

ここに広がる独特な文化や人々の交流スタイルも魅力的です

第一印象ではエンジニアの溜まり場でしたが、実態はそう単純ではなく

エンジニアリングとユーザー体験が一体化している

というよりもむしろ、誰もがエンジニアでありユーザーであり

個人の裁量が各々の技術に委ねられるという形で自由が表現されています

確かに技術者の割合は比較的多いかもしれませんが

作りたいものを自由につくるという精神が随所にみられ、

技術と思想が相互に作用できる環境が全ユーザーに与えられているだけだと

現在はそのような印象を持っています

また、タイムラインが自動で流れるため

既存SNSのようにスワイプしてリロードしてポストを求めるというような

パブロフの犬的な強化がされないのがしばらく使っていて快適でした

依存度を高めないクライアントも自由に作れることも魅力的です！

そして何よりいろんな方がいて平穏賑やかで楽しいです nostr:nevent1qqsqrcuy22k4ax09yurlynp8c4jw08aq5kylu6006ltqqs0vks6wa2q9ammmn TLでは技術系の話題と日常的な話題が自然に絡み合っていて独特な雰囲気があります。

良くも悪くも棲み分けが進むほどの規模ではないNostr村

日を経るごとに村たる所以をひしひしと感じています

そのままで、村のままでもいいんだよ？

---

おわりに🌸

いつかNostrのなにかしら開発してみたいです。（漠然）

とりあえず3月まで受験にすべての時間をかけますが

大学生活と勉強とやりたいことと折り合いをつけつつ

技術を身につけてNostrを使いこなせたらいいなと思います

明日はAdvent Calendar最終日、ひゅうが霄さん(@showV3)が担当なさいます。

受験勉強の合間に書いたため拙い文章になりましたが

さいごまでお付き合いいただき、本当にありがとうございました！

メリークリスマス！🙌

@ 7abda1f2:b6c320e7

Growing your SMS subscriber list is one of the most effective ways to amplify your marketing efforts and increase customer engagement. SMS marketing provides a direct and personal way to communicate with your audience, boasting open rates as high as 98%. However, to make the most of this channel, you need a strong and engaged subscriber base. Building this list requires more than simply asking for phone numbers; it involves offering value, creating trust, and leveraging the right strategies. Here are proven methods to grow your SMS subscriber list and keep your audience engaged.

Why a Strong SMS Subscriber List Matters A robust SMS subscriber list is the foundation of a successful marketing campaign. Unlike social media or email, where algorithms and spam filters may limit visibility, SMS messages almost always reach your audience. Moreover, SMS allows you to deliver time-sensitive and personalized messages, making it ideal for promotions, reminders, and updates. A well-curated list ensures that your messages are reaching the right people who are genuinely interested in your brand, which can lead to higher engagement and conversion rates.

Strategies to Grow Your SMS Subscriber List 1. Offer an Irresistible Incentive People are more likely to share their phone numbers if they see immediate value in doing so. Offer enticing incentives such as discounts, freebies, or exclusive content to encourage sign-ups. For example: “Sign up for our SMS alerts and get 20% off your next purchase! Text JOIN to 12345.” Ensure the incentive aligns with your brand and provides genuine value to your audience.

1. Leverage Multiple Channels for Promotion Promote your SMS opt-in opportunity across all your communication channels. Use your website, social media platforms, email newsletters, and even in-store signage to spread the word. For instance, you can add a pop-up on your website encouraging visitors to subscribe or include a CTA in your Instagram bio directing followers to your SMS program.

2. Use Shortcodes and Keywords Shortcodes and keywords make it easy for people to subscribe. A shortcode is a short phone number that users can text to join your list, while a keyword is a specific word or phrase they send to the number. For example: “Text VIP to 56789 to receive exclusive deals and updates!” Keep the keyword simple, memorable, and relevant to your brand.

3. Promote Exclusive Access Make your SMS subscribers feel special by offering exclusive perks, such as early access to sales, VIP events, or insider news. For example, you could promote an SMS-exclusive flash sale: “Be the first to shop our summer collection! Text SUMMER to 12345 for early access.” Creating a sense of exclusivity encourages more people to join and stay on your list.

4. Include SMS Sign-Up Options During Checkout Capture your customers’ phone numbers while they’re most engaged—during the checkout process. Whether in-store or online, include an opt-in option for SMS updates. For example: “Check this box to receive text alerts for special deals and new arrivals.” Be clear about what they’ll receive and ensure the process is seamless.

5. Run Contests or Giveaways Contests and giveaways are excellent ways to drive SMS sign-ups. Require participants to subscribe to your SMS list as part of the entry process. For instance: “Enter to win a $100 gift card! Text WIN to 12345 to participate.” Make sure the prize is enticing enough to motivate participation while staying relevant to your target audience.

6. Simplify the Sign-Up Process Complicated sign-up processes deter potential subscribers. Keep it simple by requiring only a phone number initially. You can collect additional information, like name or preferences, later. Ensure that the opt-in process is quick, easy, and mobile-friendly.

7. Showcase Social Proof People are more likely to subscribe when they see others benefiting from your SMS program. Share testimonials, reviews, or success stories from existing subscribers. For example: “Join thousands of happy customers who get exclusive deals and updates via text! Text SIGNUP to 67890.”

8. Add Value with Educational Content Offer more than just promotions—use SMS to provide valuable tips, updates, or educational content related to your industry. For example, a fitness brand might send weekly workout tips to keep subscribers engaged. Promoting this value proposition can attract more sign-ups: “Get fitness tips straight to your phone! Text FIT to 12345 to join.”

9. Promote SMS Opt-Ins at Events If your brand participates in events, use them as opportunities to grow your SMS list. Set up a station where attendees can sign up for updates or enter a contest by texting a keyword. Ensure that your staff is trained to explain the benefits of joining your SMS program.

Keeping Your Subscribers Engaged Once you’ve grown your SMS subscriber list, it’s crucial to maintain their interest and avoid losing them. Here’s how to keep your audience engaged:

Send Relevant Messages: Tailor your messages to your audience’s preferences and past behavior. Segment your list to ensure subscribers receive content that resonates with them. Respect Their Time: Avoid overwhelming subscribers with frequent messages. A few well-timed texts per month are usually enough to maintain engagement without becoming intrusive. Provide Value in Every Message: Ensure each message offers something meaningful, whether it’s a discount, useful information, or an update they care about. Monitor and Optimize Performance: Track metrics like open rates, click-through rates, and opt-outs to understand what works and adjust your strategy accordingly. Legal Compliance and Best Practices SMS marketing comes with legal responsibilities to protect consumer privacy. Follow these best practices to ensure compliance and maintain trust:

Obtain Explicit Consent: Only send messages to subscribers who have opted in. Use clear and transparent language during the sign-up process. Provide Opt-Out Options: Include a simple way for recipients to unsubscribe, such as “Reply STOP to opt-out.” Respect Privacy: Protect your subscribers’ information and never share it with third parties without permission. Be Transparent: Let subscribers know what to expect, such as the type and frequency of messages. Final Thoughts Growing your SMS subscriber list is a strategic process that involves offering value, simplifying the opt-in process, and leveraging multiple channels for promotion. By following these proven strategies, you can build a strong and engaged subscriber base that drives meaningful results for your brand. Remember, the key to long-term success lies in not only growing your list but also maintaining trust and delivering consistent value to your audience.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

The EU's economy is facing a number of challenges, from high energy costs to low productivity. But behind the official rhetoric lies an assumption that is rarely questioned: that the green transition will automatically lead to economic growth and increased prosperity. But is this really true?

In Germany, which is once again forced to bear the label "Europe's sick man", Chancellor Olaf Scholz is struggling with alarmingly low confidence figures ahead of the election in February. But perhaps this is not so surprising. German industrial production has been trending downward since the green agenda became fashionable. Energy-intensive production has decreased by a full 20% in just a few years. Volkswagen is closing factories, Thyssenkrupp is massively laying off employees, and more than three million pensioners are at risk of poverty.

If this is Europe's "man on the moon" moment, as EU Commissioner von der Leyen expressed it in 2019, then it's not much to brag about. At least, not if you're not a sadist.

The former ECB chief Mario Draghi's report on the EU's competitiveness has been discussed previously in Affärsvärlden, among other things by the author and by Christian Sandström. One of the problems pointed out was that European companies have significantly higher energy costs than their American competitors, with electricity prices 2-3 times higher and natural gas prices 4-5 times higher.

Germany is perhaps worst off, thanks in part to former Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to completely phase out nuclear power (a decision that not only lacked popular support but which she also refuses to acknowledge as a mistake). The sabotage of Nord Stream made the situation worse.

Without Real Capital, No Economic Prosperity

Germany's phasing out of nuclear power plants is an example of how political decisions have contributed to reducing the economy's capacity. The same applies to the sabotage of Nord Stream. Real capital, such as buildings, machinery, and equipment, is crucial for the economy's productivity (e.g., measures such as GDP per hour worked). A larger and more efficient capital stock enables the production of more goods and services with the same amount of labor, leading to greater production, higher wages, and increased material prosperity. This is basic economics. On the other hand, when real capital is declared obsolete due to political decisions, as in the case of the shutdown of nuclear power, it reduces the economy's capacity. The same applies when real capital is destroyed, as was the case with Nord Stream.

More Working Real Capital Will Be Put on the Back Burner

EU Commissioner von der Leyen promises improvement. She seems convinced that the EU's decline can be reversed by tripling down on the bloc's green goals, and listed decarbonization as one of three key pillars in a new "Competitiveness Compass". When reality does not live up to expectations, you can always press "Ctrl+Alt+Slogan" and hope that no one notices that nothing has improved.

However, her plans mean that existing and currently functioning real capital will be written off to an even greater extent in the future. This can be compared to a nation that gradually expands its nature reserves year after year. As it happens, this is also taking place. The Kunming-Montreal framework for biodiversity means that 30% of all areas, on land and at sea, must be protected by 2030. A country that currently conserves less than that must therefore identify additional areas that can be protected. The process of protecting 30% of all areas will likely reduce the economy's productive potential. With shrinking fields, there will be fewer carrots (unless significant technological progress is made).

Security Policy and Preparedness Consequences

On the current path, more real capital will be put on the back burner, which can have far-reaching consequences, not least for our security policy. For example, if Russia can produce artillery shells about three times faster, at a cost that is roughly a quarter of what it costs Ukraine's Western allies, then it's clear that this has security policy consequences. Similarly, if electricity prices in Germany are five times higher than in China, which is currently the case, then this will also have negative security policy consequences. Compared to the EU, China actually has a higher carbon dioxide emission level per capita, with a difference of about 50% according to available data. Adjusted for international trade, China emits 10% more than Sweden per capita.

A preparedness perspective can also be found. In the early 1990s, Swedish farmers produced nearly 75% of the country's food. Today, Sweden's population has increased significantly, but food production has not kept pace. Every other bite is imported today. In Sweden, we can even boast that we cannot even provide for ourselves with the simplest of crops - potatoes. Can we really be sure that significantly expanded nature reserves, as prescribed by the Kunming-Montreal framework for Sweden, will not further deteriorate our food preparedness?

Reminds One of Little Gnomes

I am reminded of an episode from the 90s TV series South Park, where little gnomes collect underpants. When asked about their plan, they described their method:

1. collect underpants
2. ???
3. profit!

Translated to the green transition (the German Energiewende):

1. destroy real capital and conserve land and sea
2. ???
3. economic prosperity!

What Can the EU Really Afford?

Economics is fundamentally about managing scarce resources, which many people seem to have forgotten. It's high time to question what the EU can really afford. Can we really afford to arm ourselves for war against Russia, China, and Iran while at the same time tying our own hands with green promises of reduced carbon dioxide emissions and increased biodiversity? This in a situation where the next US administration is likely to invest heavily in increasing its competitive advantages through deregulation, lower energy prices, tax cuts, and a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement?

When von der Leyen was responsible for the German military, the situation became "catastrophic". All six of the country's submarines were out of commission. At times, not a single one of the country's 14 transport aircraft could fly. German soldiers had to use broomsticks instead of guns during exercises.

Hopefully, von der Leyen will show more success in her handling of the EU's economy, defense, and preparedness than she has shown in her role as German Defense Minister. However, it may also be time for more people to challenge the prevailing narratives that shape our policies. What if the facts don't quite add up to the truth we're being told?

@ 0a9436f8:9935ad4f

Introduction

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative," "enterprise," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. Hisfeelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

OVERSOCIALIZATION

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goofoff at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible," they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

THE POWER PROCESS

33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.

35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

37, Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

SURROGATE ACTIVITIES

38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn't need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.

39. We use the term "surrogate activity" to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the "fulfillment" that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person's pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito's studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn't know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)

40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one's physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the "fulfillment" they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.

41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the "mundane" business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.

AUTONOMY

42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective basis if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant. [5]

43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power (the good combat soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).

44. But for most people it is through the power processshaving a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goalsthat self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go through the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc. [6]

SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS

45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren't the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.

46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.

47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.

48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people's hands. For example, a variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)

49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.

50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]

53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.

54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.

55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.

56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today's society. [8]

57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer's need for the power process.

58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today's industrial society. We contend that the most important cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don't mean to say that modern society is the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its recent (mid- to late-20th century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.

DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY

59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.

60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives.

61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the effort needed to hold a job is "minimal"; but usually, in lower- to middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of OBEDIENCE. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not well served.)

62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual. [10] But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.

63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see paragraphs 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry [11], and through surrogate activities.

64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics of the second half of the 20th century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called by other names such as "anomic" or "middle-class vacuity.") We suggest that the so-called "identity crisis" is actually a search for a sense of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in modern society is the search for "fulfillment." But we think that for the majority of people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that is, a surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.

65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money, climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in some other way, most people are not in a position to pursue their goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else's employee and, as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even people who are in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a chronic complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people who most need autonomy.

66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with rules and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.

67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in the pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. ("We live in a world in which relatively few peoplesmaybe 500 or 1,000smake the important decisions"sPhilip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to more [than] a very limited extent. The individual's search for security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of powerlessness.

68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. But psychological security does not closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.

69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one's fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.

70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to influence them. So modern man's drive for security tends to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter etc.) his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)

71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that are necessarily frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3. One may become angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations it does not even permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel slowly, but one generally has no choice but to move with the flow of traffic and obey the traffic signals. One may want to do one's work in a different way, but usually one can work only according to the rules laid down by one's employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with the power process. Most of these regulations cannot be dispensed with, because they are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.

72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice "safe sex"). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.

73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda [14] to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to "commercials" and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee.

74. We suggest that modern man's obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The "mid-life crisis" also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.

75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on social power; we won't discuss that here.) This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of "fulfillment." We suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the power processswith real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.

76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say, "Society must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through the power process." For such people the value of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain autonomy they must get off that leash.

HOW SOME People adjust

77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people differ so greatly in their response to modern society.

78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the Old South. (We don't mean to sneer at the "plantation darkies" of the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)

79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that game.

80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. Some are so susceptible that, even if they make a great deal of money, they cannot satisfy their constant craving for the the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their income is large, and their cravings are frustrated.

81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who aren't interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process.

82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort (putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.). Thus material acquisition serves their need for the power process. But it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist of following orders) and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g., security, aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in paragraphs 80-82 because we have assumed that the desire for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course it's not that simple. [11]

83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward those goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identif ication with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses it too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). Thus the U.S. went through the power process and many Americans, because of their identification with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the same phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power.

84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the "fulfillment" that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp-collecting. Some people are more "other-directed" than others, and therefore will more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a person's way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and (for some people) social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment (paragraphs 87-92).

85. In this section we have explained how many people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly "hooked" on a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization (see paragraphs 41, 64). In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses.

86. But even if most people in industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed to that form of society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to fulfill one's need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals.

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS

87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity" or by a desire to "benefit humanity." But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn't give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.

88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human racesmost of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.

90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.

91. Also, science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).

92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.

THE NATURE OF FREEDOM

93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But, because "freedom" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.

94. By "freedom" we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence; food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).

95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.

96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.

97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free" man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the bourgeois). Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, "Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century," page 202, explains the philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: "An individual is granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life requires such rights. By community Hu meant the whole society of the nation." And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum Chang (Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party in China) freedom had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else prescribes? FC's conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the theories are imposed.

98. One more point to be made in this section: It should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he SAYS he has enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological controls of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people's ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by their real needs. For example, it's likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY

99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.

100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitorysthe trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered by only pushed a step ahead.

101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.

102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.

109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an offshoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be suresthere is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step. But it was a step along the road that English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.

110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.

INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED

111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory onessoon swamped by the tide of historysor, if large enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not reformers.

112. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make such suggestions seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected.

113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbable that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.

RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

114. As explained in paragraphs 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mental health" programs, etc.)

115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits just the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.

116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will nottadjust to society's requirements: welfare leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.

117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.

118. Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy." Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far way. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.

119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. To much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.

120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goalsstheir "autonomous" efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the small-business person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.

THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS

121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.

122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.

123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. [19]

124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system. [20]

TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM

125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's compromise. Give me half of what I asked." The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.

126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.

127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications ... how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet, as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).

129. Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back, but technology can never take a step backsshort of the overthrow of the whole technological system.

130. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and computers, etc.). To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would require a long and difficult social struggle. Those who want to protect freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the rapidity with which they develop, hence they become apathetic and no longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution, not reform.

131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work is more important.

132. It is well known that people generally work better and more persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those who oppose technological invasions of freedom are working to avoid a negative outcome, consequently there are few who work persistently and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further erosion of freedom through technical progress, most would tend to relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology as it progresses would find ways, in spite of any barriers, to exert more and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent on the system.

133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a way as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given the pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago its seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.

134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least will weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. If such a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.

135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give the land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.

SIMPLER SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAVE PROVED INTRACTABLE

136. If anyone still imagines that it would be possible to reform the system in such a way as to protect freedom from technology, let him consider how clumsily and for the most part unsuccessfully our society has dealt with other social problems that are far more simple and straightforward. Among other things, the system has failed to stop environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking or domestic abuse.

137. Take our environmental problems, for example. Here the conflict of values is straightforward: economic expedience now versus saving some of our natural resources for our grandchildren. [22] But on this subject we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from the people who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line of action, and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the environmental issue consist of struggles and compromises between different factions, some of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another moment. The line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of public opinion. This is not a rational process, nor is it one that is likely to lead to a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major social problems, if they get "solved" at all, are rarely or never solved through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work themselves out through a process in which various competing groups pursuing their own (usually short-term) self-interest [23] arrive (mainly by luck) at some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact, the principles we formulated in paragraphs 100-106 make it seem doubtful that rational, long-term social planning can EVER be successful.

138. Thus it is clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity for solving even relatively straightforward social problems. How then is it going to solve the far more difficult and subtle problem of reconciling freedom with technology? Technology presents clear-cut material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction that means different things to different people, and its loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk.

139. And note this important difference: It is conceivable that our environmental problems (for example) may some day be settled through a rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens it will be only because it is in the long-term interest of the system to solve these problems. But it is NOT in the interest of the system to preserve freedom or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in the interest of the system to bring human behavior under control to the greatest possible extent. [24] Thus, while practical considerations may eventually force the system to take a rational, prudent approach to environmental problems, equally practical considerations will force the system to regulate human behavior ever more closely (preferably by indirect means that will disguise the encroachment on freedom). This isn't just our opinion. Eminent social scientists (e.g. James Q. Wilson) have stressed the importance of "socializing" people more effectively.

REVOLUTION IS EASIER THAN REFORM

140. We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be reformed in such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrial-technological system altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature of society.

141. People tend to assume that because a revolution involves a much greater change than reform does, it is more difficult to bring about than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances revolution is much easier than reform. The reason is that a revolutionary movement can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement cannot inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular social problem. A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices. For this reasons it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective, permanent restraints on the development or application of any one segment of technology, such as genetic engineering, for example. Not many people will devote themselves with single-minded passion to imposing and maintaining restraints on genetic engineering, but under suitable conditions large numbers of people may devote themselves passionately to a revolution against the industrial-technological system. As we noted in paragraph 132, reformers seeking to limit certain aspects of technology would be working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries work to gain a powerful rewardsfulfillment of their revolutionary visionsand therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do.

142. Reform is always restrained by the fear of painful consequences if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary fever has taken hold of a society, people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for the sake of their revolution. This was clearly shown in the French and Russian Revolutions. It may be that in such cases only a minority of the population is really committed to the revolution, but this minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes the dominant force in society. We will have more to say about revolution in paragraphs 180-205.

CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR

143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings of the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise, crowding, forcing human behavior into the mold that society requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately constant, or at any rate has varied only within cer tain bounds. Consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going wrong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaced by some more efficient form of society. [25]

144. Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing ways of modifying human beings.

145. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today's society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)

146. Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the new methods of controlling human behavior that modern society is developing. Let us look at some of the other methods.

147. To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden video cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement). [26] Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communication media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don't have work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise they get "bored," i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.

148. Other techniques strike deeper than the foregoing. Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid's behind when he doesn't know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them. It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child's development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools. "Parenting" techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make children accept fundamental values of the system and behave in ways that the system finds desirable. "Mental health" programs, "intervention" techniques, psychotherapy and so forth are ostensibly designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they usually serve as methodsfor inducing individuals to think and behave as the system requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat. His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into conformity.) Child abuse in its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if not all cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking, when used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person fit in well with the existing system of society. In practice, the word "abuse" tends to be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing that produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go beyond the prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs for preventing "child abuse" are directed toward the control of human behavior on behalf of the system.

149. Presumably, research will continue to increase the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior. But we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be used. We have already mentioned the use of drugs in this connection. Neurology may provide other avenues for modifying the human mind. Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in the form of "gene therapy," and there is no reason to assume that such methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the body that affect mental functioning.

150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system's economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won't study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse, other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict (e.g., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will therefore be FORCED to use every practical means of controlling human behavior.

151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will have been passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system. [27]

152. Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. [28] Each new step in the assertion of control over the humanmind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases there will be a humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn't have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan.

153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.

154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal, and suppose some sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. [29] Of course most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the system.

155. Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn't fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a "cure" for a "sickness" and therefore as good.

156. In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program, because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society.If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already with one of our society's most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is "optional": No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite recently in human history most people got along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing pressure on us as it does.

157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.

158. It presumably would be impractical for all people to have electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could be controlled by the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so open to biological intervention shows that the problem of controlling human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem of neurons, hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that is accessible to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great advances will be made in the control of human behavior.

159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See paragraphs 127, 132, 153.)

160. To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we point out that yesterday's science fiction is today's fact. The Industrial Revolution has radically altered man's environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.

HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS

161. But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these techniques into a functioning social system. The latter problem is the more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the "lab schools" where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them effectively throughout our educational system. We all know what many of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking knives and guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical advances relating to human behavior, the system to date has not been impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those of the type that might be called "bourgeois." But there are growing numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels against the system: welfare leaches, youth gangs, cultists, satanists, nazis, radical environmentalists, militiamen, etc.

162. The system is currently engaged in a desperate struggle to overcome certain problems that threaten its survival, among which the problems of human behavior are the most important. If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say 40 to 100 years.

163. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several decades. By that time it will have to have solved, or at least brought under control, the principal problems that confront it, in particular that of "socializing" human beings; that is, making people sufficiently docile so that heir behavior no longer threatens the system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which is complete control over everything on Earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary, monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition, just as today the government, the corporations and other large organizations both cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion. Only a small number of people will have any real power, and even these probably will have only very limited freedom, because their behavior too will be regulated; just as today our politicians and corporation executives can retain their positions of power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits.

164. Don't imagine that the systems will stop developing further techniques for controlling human beings and nature once the crisis of the next few decades is over and increasing control is no longer necessary for the system's survival. On the contrary, once the hard times are over the system will increase its control over people and nature more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered by difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival is not the principal motive for extending control. As we explained in paragraphs 87-90, technicians and scientists carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity; that is, they satisfy their need for power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting and challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding the human body and mind and intervening in their development. For the "good of humanity," of course.

165. But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of the coming decades prove to be too much for the system. If the system breaks down there may be a period of chaos, a "time of troubles" such as those that history has recorded at various epochs in the past. It is impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of troubles, but at any rate the human race would be given a new chance. The greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to reconstitute itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly there will be many people (power-hungry types especially) who will be anxious to get the factories running again.

166. Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude to which the industrial system is reducing the human race. First, we must work to heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the likelihood that it will break down or be weakened sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. Second, it is necessary to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial society if and when the system becomes sufficiently weakened. And such an ideology will help to assure that, if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The factories should be destroyed, technical books burned, etc.

HUMAN SUFFERING

167. The industrial system will not break down purely as a result of revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary attack unless its own internal problems of development lead it into very serious difficulties. So if the system breaks down it will do so either spontaneously, or through a process that is in part spontaneous but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown is sudden, many people will die, since the world's population has become so overblown that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth rate than through elevation of the death rate, the process of de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be phased out in a smoothly managed, orderly way, especially since the technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it therefore cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe, but maybe not. In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to break the system down unless it is already in enough trouble so that there would be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself anyway; and the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences of its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries, by hastening the onset of the breakdown, will be reducing the extent of the disaster.

168. In the second place, one has to balance struggle and death against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us, freedom and dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but empty and purposeless life.

169. In the third place, it is not at all certain that survival of the system will lead to less suffering than breakdown of the system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to cause, immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and with their environment, have been shattered by contact with industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that that implies. Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate about what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?

170. "Oh!" say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!" Yeah, sure. That's what they said 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph 103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempts to end poverty and disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so than the present once. For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine by creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But this will allow the human population to keep expanding indefinitely, and it is well known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression. This is merely one example of the PREDICTABLE problems that will arise. We emphasize that, as past experience has shown, technical progress will lead to other new problems that CANNOT be predicted in advance (paragraph 103). In fact, ever since the Industrial Revolution, technology has been creating new problems for society far more rapidly than it has been solving old ones. Thus it will take a long and difficult period of trial and error for the technophiles to work the bugs out of their Brave New World (if they every do). In the meantime there will be great suffering. So it is not at all clear that the survival of industrial society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of that society would. Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from which there is not likely to be any easy escape.

THE FUTURE

171. But suppose now that industrial society does survive the next several decades and that the bugs do eventually get worked out of the system, so that it functions smoothly. What kind of system will it be? We will consider several possibilities.

172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.

173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elitesjust as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to "sublimate" their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.

176. One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other's shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other's tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, crime, "cults," hate groups) unless they were biologically or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.

177. Needless to say, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem to us most likely. But we can envision no plausible scenarios that are any more palatable than the ones we've just described. It is overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the "bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run, and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever on large organizations; they will be more "socialized" than ever and their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly to a very great extent) will be those that are engineered into them rather than being the results of chance (or of God's will, or whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild). In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed.

178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychologically. If man is not adjusted to this new environment by being artificially re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long and painful process of natural selection. The former is far more likely than the latter.

179. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences.

STRATEGY

180. The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here some indications of how to go about stopping it.

181. As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.

182. It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions were failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new kind of society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal form of society. Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.

183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, WILD nature: those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).

184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology. [30] It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or herdsmen or fishermen or hunters, etc. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.

185. As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial societyswell, you can't eat your cake and have it too. To gain one thing you have to sacrifice another.

186. Most people hate psychological conflict. For this reason they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues, and they like to have such issues presented to them in simple, black-and-white terms: THIS is all good and THAT is all bad. The revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels.

187. On the more sophisticated level the ideology should address itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful and rational. The object should be to create a core of people who will be opposed to the industrial system on a rational, thought-out basis, with full appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved, and of the price that has to be paid for getting rid of the system. It is particularly important to attract people of this type, as they are capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others. These people should be addressed on as rational a level as possible. Facts should never intentionally be distorted and intemperate language should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to the emotions, but in making such appeal care should be taken to avoid misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy the intellectual respectability of the ideology.

188. On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology vs. nature in unambiguous terms. But even on this second level the ideology should not be expressed in language that is so cheap, intemperate or irrational that it alienates people of the thoughtful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of an unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However, propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old world-view goes under.

189. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution [31], the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.

190. Any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system, but one should be careful about what kind of conflict one encourages. The line of conflict should be drawn between the mass of the people and the power-holding elite of industrial society (politicians, scientists, upper-level business executives, government officials, etc.). It should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. For example, it would be bad strategy for the revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption. Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn't need and that is very poor compensation for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with the facts. It is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy one should generally avoid blaming the public.

191. One should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that between the power-holding elite (which wields technology) and the general public (over which technology exerts its power). For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from the important conflicts (between power-elite and ordinary people, between technology and nature); for another thing, other conflicts may actually tend to encourage technologization, because each side in such a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African Americans by placing back individuals in the technological power-elite. They want there to be many black government officials, sc ientists, corporation executives and so forth. In this way they are helping to absorb the African American subculture into the technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage only those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the conflicts of power-elite vs. ordinary people, technology vs nature.

192. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is NOT through militant advocacy of minority rights (see paragraphs 21, 29). Instead, the revolutionaries should emphasize that although minorities do suffer more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is of peripheral significance. Our real enemy is the industrial-technological system, and in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no importance.

193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics. [32]

194. Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some "green" party should win control of the United States Congress in an election. In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own ideology they would have to take vigorous measures to turn economic growth into economic shrinkage. To the average man the results would appear disastrous: There would be massive unemployment, shortages of commodities, etc. Even if the grosser ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted. Dissatisfaction would grow, the "green" party would be voted out of office and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above.

195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of us. Holy robots! The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a "democratic" industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one. [33] It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.

196. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to bind the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT are probably harmful to the environment in the short run, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations.

197. Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too much control over nature; they argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best these people are expressing themselves unclearly, because they fail to distinguish between power for LARGE ORGANIZATIONS and power for INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity, because people NEED power. Modern man as a collective entitysthat is, the industrial systemshas immense power over nature, and we (FC) regard this as evil. But modern INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS have far less power than primitive man ever did. Generally speaking, the vast power of "modern man" over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups but by large organizations. To the extent that the average modern INDIVIDUAL can wield the power of technology, he is permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. (You need a license for everything and with the license come rules and regulations.) The individual has only those technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him. His PERSONAL power over nature is slight.

198. Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had considerable power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say power WITHIN nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to find and prepare edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat, cold, rain, dangerous animals, etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible compared to the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society.

199. Instead of arguing for powerlessness and passivity, one should argue that the power of the INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM should be broken, and that this will greatly INCREASE the power and freedom of INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS.

200. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries' ONLY goal. Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal. More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit themselves to have any other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal. If they give in to that temptation, they will fall right back into the technological trap, because modern technology is a unified, tightly organized system, so that, in order to retain SOME technology, one finds oneself obliged to retain MOST technology, hence one ends up sacrificing only token amounts of technology.

201. Suppose for example that the revolutionaries took "social justice" as a goal. Human nature being what it is, social justice would not come about spontaneously; it would have to be enforced. In order to enforce it the revolutionaries would have to retain central organization and control. For that they would need rapid long-distance transportation and communication, and therefore all the technology needed to support the transportation and communication systems. To feed and clothe poor people they would have to use agricultural and manufacturing technology. And so forth. So that the attempt to insure social justice would force them to retain most parts of the technological system. Not that we have anything against social justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to get rid of the technological system.

202. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using SOME modern technology. If nothing else they must use the communications media to spread their message. But they should use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack the technological system.

203. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, "Wine isn't bad for you if used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good for you! It won't do me any harm if I take just one little drink.... " Well you know what is going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine.

204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn't matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on.

205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world's population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.

206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.

TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY

207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.

208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until r ather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.

209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator.

210. So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organization-dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to build it the first time around. Surviving technical books would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without outside help, can only be built in a series of stages: You need tools to make tools to make tools to make tools ... . A long process of economic development and progress in social organization is required. And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for "progress" is a phenomenon peculiar to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.

211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.

212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can't predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

THE DANGER OF LEFTISM

213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.

214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can't have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can't make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can't have a "planned society" without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.

215. The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.

216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else's academic freedom. (This is "political correctness.") The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.

217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists.

218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as "leftists" do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term "leftism" because we don't know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)

219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists' drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist's real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It's not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.

220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social "evil" to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society's ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.

221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.

222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer's book, "The True Believer." But not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists. Presumably a true-believing nazi, for instance, is very different psychologically from a true-believing leftist. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement. This presents a problem with which we must admit we don't know how to deal. We aren't sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 220, 221).

223. Some readers may say, "This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don't have all these totalitarian tendencies." It's quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others' values (up to a point) and wouldn't want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.

224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power-hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base.

225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn't bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where "political correctness" has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.

226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.

227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word "leftist." There doesn't seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.

228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.

229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically "enlightened" educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left, like "racism," "sexism," "homophobia," "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism," "genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]

230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.

FINAL NOTE

231. Throughout this article we've made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don't claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.

232. All the same, we are reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. Just one possible weak point needs to be mentioned. We have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism. Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity but as far as we can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were not nearly so evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a significant question to which historians ought to give their attention.

Notes

1. (Paragraph 19) We are asserting that ALL, or even most, bullies and ruthless competitors suffer from feelings of inferiority.

2. (Paragraph 25) During the Victorian period many oversocialized people suffered from serious psychological problems as a result of repressing or trying to repress their sexual feelings. Freud apparently based his theories on people of this type. Today the focus of socialization has shifted from sex to aggression.

3. (Paragraph 27) Not necessarily including specialists in engineering or the "hard" sciences.

4. (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle and upper classes who resist some of these values, but usually their resistance is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the mass media only to a very limited extent. The main thrust of propaganda in our society is in favor of the stated values.

The main reason why these values have become, so to speak, the official values of our society is that they are useful to the industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talents of minority-group members who could be useful to the system. Poverty must be "cured" because the underclass causes problems for the system and contact with the underclass lowers the morale of the other classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents are useful to the system and, more importantly, because by having regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they want the family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in accord with the needs of the system. We argue in paragraphs 51, 52 that the system cannot afford to let the family or other small-scale social groups be strong or autonomous.)

5. (Paragraph 42) It may be argued that the majority of people don't want to make their own decisions but want leaders to do their thinking for them. There is an element of truth in this. People like to make their own decisions in small matters, but making decisions on difficult, fundamental questions requires facing up to psychological conflict, and most people hate psychological conflict. Hence they tend to lean on others in making difficult decisions. But it does not follow that they like to have decisions imposed upon them without having any opportunity to influence those decisions. The majority of people are natural followers, not leaders, but they like to have direct personal access to their leaders, they want to be able to influence the leaders and participate to some extent in making even the difficult decisions. At least to that degree they need autonomy.

6. (Paragraph 44) Some of the symptoms listed are similar to those shown by caged animals.

To explain how these symptoms arise from deprivation with respect to the power process:

Common-sense understanding of human nature tells one that lack of goals whose attainment requires effort leads to boredom and that boredom, long continued, often leads eventually to depression. Failure to attain goals leads to frustration and lowering of self-esteem. Frustration leads to anger, anger to aggression, often in the form of spouse or child abuse. It has been shown that long-continued frustration commonly leads to depression and that depression tends to cause guilt, sleep disorders, eating disorders and bad feelings about oneself. Those who are tending toward depression seek pleasure as an antidote; hence insatiable hedonism and excessive sex, with perversions as a means of getting new kicks. Boredom too tends to cause excessive pleasure-seeking since, lacking other goals, people often use pleasure as a goal. See accompanying diagram.

The foregoing is a simplification. Reality is more complex, and of course, deprivation with respect to the power process is not the ONLY cause of the symptoms described.

By the way, when we mention depression we do not necessarily mean depression that is severe enough to be treated by a psychiatrist. Often only mild forms of depression are involved. And when we speak of goals we do not necessarily mean long-term, thought-out goals. For many or most people through much of human history, the goals of a hand-to-mouth existence (merely providing oneself and one's family with food from day to day) have been quite sufficient.

7. (Paragraph 52) A partial exception may be made for a few passive, inward-looking groups, such as the Amish, which have little effect on the wider society. Apart from these, some genuine small-scale communities do exist in America today. For instance, youth gangs and "cults." Everyone regards them as dangerous, and so they are, because the members of these groups are loyal primarily to one another rather than to the system, hence the system cannot control them.

Or take the gypsies. The gypsies commonly get away with theft and fraud because their loyalties are such that they can always get other gypsies to give testimony that "proves" their innocence. Obviously the system would be in serious trouble if too many people belonged to such groups.

Some of the early-20th century Chinese thinkers who were concerned with modernizing China recognized the necessity breaking down small-scale social groups such as the family: "(According to Sun Yat-sen) the Chinese people needed a new surge of patriotism, which would lead to a transfer of loyalty from the family to the state.... (According to Li Huang) traditional attachments, particularly to the family had to be abandoned if nationalism were to develop in China." (Chester C. Tan, "Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century," page 125, page 297.)

8. (Paragraph 56) Yes, we know that 19th century America had its problems, and serious ones, but for the sake of brevity we have to express ourselves in simplified terms.

9. (Paragraph 61) We leave aside the "underclass." We are speaking of the mainstream.

10. (Paragraph 62) Some social scientists, educators, "mental health" professionals and the like are doing their best to push the social drives into group 1 by trying to see to it that everyone has a satisfactory social life.

11. (Paragraphs 63, 82) Is the drive for endless material acquisition really an artificial creation of the advertising and marketing industry? Certainly there is no innate human drive for material acquisition. There have been many cultures in which people have desired little material wealth beyond what was necessary to satisfy their basic physical needs (Australian aborigines, traditional Mexican peasant culture, some African cultures). On the other hand there have also been many pre-industrial cultures in which material acquisition has played an important role. So we can't claim that today's acquisition-oriented culture is exclusively a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. But it is clear that the advertising and marketing industry has had an important part in creating that culture. The big corporations that spend millions on advertising wouldn't be spending that kind of money without solid proof that they were getting it back in increased sales. One member of FC met a sales manager a couple of years ago who was frank enough to tell him, "Our job is to make people buy things they don't want and don't need." He then described how an untrained novice could present people with the facts about a product, and make no sales at all, while a trained and experienced professional salesman would make lots of sales to the same people. This shows that people are manipulated into buying things they don't really want.

12. (Paragraph 64) The problem of purposelessness seems to have become less serious during the last 15 years or so, because people now feel less secure physically and economically than they did earlier, and the need for security provides them with a goal. But purposelessness has been replaced by frustration over the difficulty of attaining security. We emphasize the problem of purposelessness because the liberals and leftists would wish to solve our social problems by having society guarantee everyone's security; but if that could be done it would only bring back the problem of purposelessness. The real issue is not whether society provides well or poorly for people's security; the trouble is that people are dependent on the system for their security rather than having it in their own hands. This, by the way, is part of the reason why some people get worked up about the right to bear arms; possession of a gun puts that aspect of their security in their own hands.

13. (Paragraph 66) Conservatives' efforts to decrease the amount of government regulation are of little benefit to the average man. For one thing, only a fraction of the regulations can be eliminated because most regulations are necessary. For another thing, most of the deregulation affects business rather than the average individual, so that its main effect is to take power from the government and give it to private corporations. What this means for the average man is that government interference in his life is replaced by interference from big corporations, which may be permitted, for example, to dump more chemicals that get into his water supply and give him cancer. The conservatives are just taking the average man for a sucker, exploiting his resentment of Big Government to promote the power of Big Business.

14. (Paragraph 73) When someone approves of the purpose for which propaganda is being used in a given case, he generally calls it "education" or applies to it some similar euphemism. But propaganda is propaganda regardless of the purpose for which it is used.

15. (Paragraph 83) We are not expressing approval or disapproval of the Panama invasion. We only use it to illustrate a point.

16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. We quote from "Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives," edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, pages 476-478:

"The progressive heightening of standards of propriety, and with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement (in 19th century America) ... were common to the whole society.... [T]he change in social behavior is so long term and so widespread as to suggest a connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social processes; that of industrial urbanization itself...."Massachusetts in 1835 had a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly preindustrial and native born. It's citizens were used to considerable personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans, they were all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the nature of their work made them physically independent of each other.... Individual problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause for wider social concern...."But the impact of the twin movements to the city and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835, had a progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the 19th century and into the 20th. The factory demanded regularity of behavior, a life governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar, the demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town, the needs of living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many actions previously unobjectionable. Both blue- and white-collar employees in larger establishments were mutually dependent on their fellows; as one man's work fit into anther's, so one man's business was no longer his own.

"The results of the new organization of life and work were apparent by 1900, when some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior which had been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere of the later period.... The move to the cities had, in short, produced a more tractable, more socialized, more 'civilized' generation than its predecessors."

17. (Paragraph 117) Apologists for the system are fond of citing cases in which elections have been decided by one or two votes, but such cases are rare.

18. (Paragraph 119) "Today, in technologically advanced lands, men live very similar lives in spite of geographical, religious, and political differences. The daily lives of a Christian bank clerk in Chicago, a Buddhist bank clerk in Tokyo, and a Communist bank clerk in Moscow are far more alike than the life of any one of them is like that of any single man who lived a thousand years ago. These similarities are the result of a common technology...." L. Sprague de Camp, "The Ancient Engineers," Ballantine edition, page 17.

The lives of the three bank clerks are not IDENTICAL. Ideology does have SOME effect. But all technological societies, in order to survive, must evolve along APPROXIMATELY the same trajectory.

19. (Paragraph 123) Just think an irresponsible genetic engineer might create a lot of terrorists.

20. (Paragraph 124) For a further example of undesirable consequences of medical progress, suppose a reliable cure for cancer is discovered. Even if the treatment is too expensive to be available to any but the elite, it will greatly reduce their incentive to stop the escape of carcinogens into the environment.

21. (Paragraph 128) Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favor. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favor by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves.

The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate.

22. (Paragraph 137) Here we are considering only the conflict of values within the mainstream. For the sake of simplicity we leave out of the picture "outsider" values like the idea that wild nature is more important than human economic welfare.

23. (Paragraph 137) Self-interest is not necessarily MATERIAL self-interest. It can consist in fulfillment of some psychological need, for example, by promoting one's own ideology or religion.

24. (Paragraph 139) A qualification: It is in the interest of the system to permit a certain prescribed degree of freedom in some areas. For example, economic freedom (with suitable limitations and restraints) has proved effective in promoting economic growth. But only planned, circumscribed, limited freedom is in the interest of the system. The individual must always be kept on a leash, even if the leash is sometimes long (see paragraphs 94, 97).

25. (Paragraph 143) We don't mean to suggest that the efficiency or the potential for survival of a society has always been inversely proportional to the amount of pressure or discomfort to which the society subjects people. That certainly is not the case. There is good reason to believe that many primitive societies subjected people to less pressure than European society did, but European society proved far more efficient than any primitive society and always won out in conflicts with such societies because of the advantages conferred by technology.

26. (Paragraph 147) If you think that more effective law enforcement is unequivocally good because it suppresses crime, then remember that crime as defined by the system is not necessarily what YOU would call crime. Today, smoking marijuana is a "crime," and, in some places in the U.S., so is possession of an unregistered handgun. Tomorrow, possession of ANY firearm, registered or not, may be made a crime, and the same thing may happen with disapproved methods of child-rearing, such as spanking. In some countries, expression of dissident political opinions is a crime, and there is no certainty that this will never happen in the U.S., since no constitution or political system lasts forever.

If a society needs a large, powerful law enforcement establishment, then there is something gravely wrong with that society; it must be subjecting people to severe pressures if so many refuse to follow the rules, or follow them only because forced. Many societies in the past have gotten by with little or no formal law-enforcement.

27. (Paragraph 151) To be sure, past societies have had means of influencing human behavior, but these have been primitive and of low effectiveness compared with the technological means that are now being developed.

28. (Paragraph 152) However, some psychologists have publicly expressed opinions indicating their contempt for human freedom. And the mathematician Claude Shannon was quoted in Omni (August 1987) as saying, "I visualize a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to humans, and I'm rooting for the machines."

29. (Paragraph 154) This is no science fiction! After writing paragraph 154 we came across an article in Scientific American according to which scientists are actively developing techniques for identifying possible future criminals and for treating them by a combination of biological and psychological means. Some scientists advocate compulsory application of the treatment, which may be available in the near future. (See "Seeking the Criminal Element," by W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, March 1995.) Maybe you think this is OK because the treatment would be applied to those who might become violent criminals. But of course it won't stop there. Next, a treatment will be applied to those who might become drunk drivers (they endanger human life too), then perhaps to peel who spank their children, then to environmentalists who sabotage logging equipment, eventually to anyone whose behavior is inconvenient for the system.

30. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis. It is true that in many societies religion has served as a support and justification for the established order, but it is also true that religion has often provided a basis for rebellion. Thus it may be useful to introduce a religious element into the rebellion against technology, the more so because Western society today has no strong religious foundation. Religion, nowadays either is used as cheap and transparent support for narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism (fundamentalist protestant sects, "cults"), or is simply stagnant (Catholicism, main-line Protestantism). The nearest thing to a strong, widespread, dynamic religion that the West has seen in recent times has been the quasi-religion of leftism, but leftism today is fragmented and has no clear, unified, inspiring goal.

Thus there is a religious vacuum in our society that could perhaps be filled by a religion focused on nature in opposition to technology. But it would be a mistake to try to concoct artificially a religion to fill this role. Such an invented religion would probably be a failure. Take the "Gaia" religion for example. Do its adherents REALLY believe in it or are they just play-acting? If they are just play-acting their religion will be a flop in the end.

It is probably best not to try to introduce religion into the conflict of nature vs. technology unless you REALLY believe in that religion yourself and find that it arouses a deep, strong, genuine response in many other people.

31. (Paragraph 189) Assuming that such a final push occurs. Conceivably the industrial system might be eliminated in a somewhat gradual or piecemeal fashion (see paragraphs 4, 167 and Note 4).

32. (Paragraph 193) It is even conceivable (remotely) that the revolution might consist only of a massive change of attitudes toward technology resulting in a relatively gradual and painless disintegration of the industrial system. But if this happens we'll be very lucky. It's far more probably that the transition to a nontechnological society will be very difficult and full of conflicts and disasters.

33. (Paragraph 195) The economic and technological structure of a society are far more important than its political structure in determining the way the average man lives (see paragraphs 95, 119 and Notes 16, 18).

34. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called "anarchist," and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC's violent methods.

35. (Paragraph 219) Many leftists are motivated also by hostility, but the hostility probably results in part from a frustrated need for power.

36. (Paragraph 229) It is important to understand that we mean someone who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have equal rights is not necessary a leftist. The feminist, gay rights, etc., movements that exist in our society have the particular ideological tone that characterizes leftism, and if one believes, for example, that women should have equal rights it does not necessarily follow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it exists today.

If copyright problems make it impossible for this long quotation to be printed, then please change Note 16 to read as follows:

16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. In "Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives," edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, it is explained how in pre-industrial America the average person had greater independence and autonomy than he does today, and how the process of industrialization necessarily led to the restriction of personal freedom.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #2

Nostr doesn't subscribe to any ideals of "free speech" as these belong to the realm of politics and assume a big powerful government that enforces a common ruleupon everybody else.

Nostr instead is much simpler, it simply says that servers are private property and establishes a generalized framework for people to connect to all these servers, creating a true free market in the process. In other words, Nostr is the public road that each market participant can use to build their own store or visit others and use their services.

(Of course a road is never truly public, in normal cases it's ran by the government, in this case it relies upon the previous existence of the internet with all its quirks and chaos plus a hand of government control, but none of that matters for this explanation).

More concretely speaking, Nostr is just a set of definitions of the formats of the data that can be passed between participants and their expected order, i.e. messages between clients (i.e. the program that runs on a user computer) and relays (i.e. the program that runs on a publicly accessible computer, a "server", generally with a domain-name associated) over a type of TCP connection (WebSocket) with cryptographic signatures. This is what is called a "protocol" in this context, and upon that simple base multiple kinds of sub-protocols can be added, like a protocol for "public-square style microblogging", "semi-closed group chat" or, I don't know, "recipe sharing and feedback".

@ 50041f6c:cb61480b

SMS retail marketing has emerged as one of the most effective ways for businesses to connect with customers in today’s fast-paced digital world. With nearly everyone owning a mobile phone and frequently checking messages, SMS marketing offers a direct, personal, and highly efficient channel to engage customers, promote products, and boost sales. If you’re a retailer looking for innovative ways to increase revenue and build customer loyalty, SMS marketing might be the solution you’ve been seeking. This article will explore the benefits of retail SMS marketing and provide actionable strategies to help you harness its full potential.

Why SMS Retail Marketing Works SMS marketing stands out because of its unparalleled reach and engagement rates. Unlike emails that might end up in spam folders or social media ads that depend on algorithms, text messages are almost always delivered and read. Studies show that SMS messages boast a 98% open rate, with most being read within minutes of receipt. This immediacy and reliability make SMS an ideal tool for time-sensitive offers, promotions, and customer communications.

Additionally, SMS is a highly personal medium. Customers are more likely to engage with brands that deliver relevant, valuable content directly to their phones. Whether it’s a discount code, a flash sale notification, or a friendly reminder about loyalty points, SMS can create a stronger connection between retailers and their audience.

Key Benefits of SMS Retail Marketing 1. Instant Communication One of the biggest advantages of SMS is its speed. Messages are delivered within seconds, making it an excellent choice for time-sensitive campaigns. For example, retailers can send out a flash sale alert or notify customers about restocked popular items, prompting immediate action.

1. High Engagement Rates SMS outperforms most other marketing channels in terms of engagement. Customers are far more likely to read and respond to a text message than an email or social media ad. This makes SMS an effective way to drive traffic to your store or website.

2. Cost-Effective SMS campaigns are relatively inexpensive compared to traditional advertising methods like print or TV ads. Even small businesses with limited budgets can use SMS marketing to reach a large audience without breaking the bank.

3. Personalization Modern SMS marketing tools allow businesses to personalize messages based on customer preferences, purchase history, or location. This tailored approach increases the likelihood of conversion and strengthens customer loyalty.

4. Improved Customer Experience SMS can be used for more than just promotions. Retailers can leverage it to provide order updates, delivery notifications, and customer service responses, creating a seamless and satisfying shopping experience.

Strategies for Effective SMS Retail Marketing 1. Build a Quality Subscriber List The foundation of any successful SMS marketing campaign is a robust and engaged subscriber list. Encourage customers to opt-in by offering incentives such as discounts, free shipping, or exclusive access to sales. Ensure you’re collecting permission in a way that complies with legal requirements, such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

1. Craft Short, Clear Messages With SMS, brevity is key. Keep your messages short, clear, and actionable. Include essential details like the promotion, deadline, and a call-to-action (CTA). For example: “Flash Sale! 20% off all items today only. Shop now: [link]”

2. Use Timing to Your Advantage The timing of your messages can significantly impact their effectiveness. Send SMS campaigns during times when customers are likely to act, such as mid-morning or early evening. Avoid sending messages too late at night or too early in the morning, as this could annoy recipients.

3. Incorporate Exclusive Offers Make your SMS subscribers feel special by providing exclusive deals or early access to sales. This not only boosts engagement but also encourages more customers to join your SMS list.

4. Integrate SMS with Other Channels SMS marketing works best when combined with other strategies. Use SMS to complement your email campaigns, social media promotions, and in-store marketing. For instance, you can send a text reminding customers to check their email for a special coupon code or link to your latest Instagram post.

5. Monitor Performance and Optimize Track metrics like delivery rates, click-through rates, and conversion rates to gauge the success of your campaigns. Use this data to identify what works and refine your approach over time.

Compliance and Best Practices While SMS marketing offers immense potential, it’s essential to stay compliant with regulations to avoid legal issues and maintain customer trust. Here are some best practices to follow:

Get Consent: Always obtain explicit permission from customers before sending marketing messages. Provide Opt-Out Options: Include a clear way for recipients to unsubscribe, such as “Reply STOP to opt-out.” Limit Frequency: Avoid bombarding customers with too many messages. A few well-timed texts per month are often enough to drive results without overwhelming your audience. Protect Privacy: Store customer data securely and never share it with third parties without permission. Real-Life Examples of SMS Retail Marketing Success Many retailers have successfully used SMS marketing to drive sales and engagement. For instance, a clothing retailer might send a message like: “New arrivals are here! Get 15% off your first order. Shop now: [link]” Similarly, a restaurant could use SMS to notify customers about special deals: “Lunch special: Get a free drink with any entree today! Show this text to redeem.”

These examples highlight how SMS can be tailored to different industries and goals, delivering significant results.

Final Thoughts SMS retail marketing is a powerful tool for modern businesses looking to engage customers and boost sales. By leveraging its immediacy, high engagement rates, and personalization capabilities, retailers can create impactful campaigns that resonate with their audience. However, success requires a thoughtful approach, from building a quality subscriber list to crafting compelling messages and adhering to compliance regulations. When done right, SMS marketing can become a cornerstone of your retail strategy, driving revenue and fostering customer loyalty.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Bluesky is a scam

Bluesky advertises itself as an open network, they say people won't lose followers or their identity, they advertise themselves as a protocol ("atproto") and because of that they are tricking a lot of people into using them. These three claims are false.

protocolness

Bluesky is a company. "atproto" is the protocol. Supposedly they are two different things, right? Bluesky just releases software that implements the protocol, but others can also do that, it's open!

And yet, the protocol has an official webpage with a waitlist and a private beta? Why is the protocol advertised as a company product? Because it is. The "protocol" is just a description of whatever the Bluesky app and servers do, it can and does change anytime the Bluesky developers decide they want to change it, and it will keep changing for as long as Bluesky apps and servers control the biggest part of the network.

Oh, so there is the possibility of other players stepping in and then it becomes an actual interoperable open protocol? Yes, but what is the likelihood of that happening? It is very low. No serious competitor is likely to step in and build serious apps using a protocol that is directly controlled by Bluesky. All we will ever see are small "community" apps made by users and small satellite small businesses -- not unlike the people and companies that write plugins, addons and alternative clients for popular third-party centralized platforms.

And last, even if it happens that someone makes an app so good that it displaces the canonical official Bluesky app, then that company may overtake the protocol itself -- not because they're evil, but because there is no way it cannot be like this.

identity

According to their own documentation, the Bluesky people were looking for an identity system that provided global ids, key rotation and human-readable names.

They must have realized that such properties are not possible in an open and decentralized system, but instead of accepting a tradeoff they decided they wanted all their desired features and threw away the "decentralized" part, quite literally and explicitly (although they make sure to hide that piece in the middle of a bunch of code and text that very few will read).

The "DID Placeholder" method they decided to use for their global identities is nothing more than a normal old boring trusted server controlled by Bluesky that keeps track of who is who and can, at all times, decide to ban a person and deprive them from their identity (they dismissively call a "denial of service attack").

They decided to adopt this method as a placeholder until someone else doesn't invent the impossible alternative that would provide all their desired properties in a decentralized manner -- which is nothing more than a very good excuse: "yes, it's not great now, but it will improve!".

openness

Months after launching their product with an aura of decentralization and openness and getting a bunch of people inside that believed, falsely, they were joining an actually open network, Bluesky has decided to publish a part of their idea of how other people will be able to join their open network.

When I first saw their app and how they were very prominently things like follower counts, like counts and other things that are typical of centralized networks and can't be reliable or exact on truly open networks (like Nostr), I asked myself how were they going to do that once they became and open "federated" network as they were expected to be.

Turns out their decentralization plan is to just allow you, as a writer, to host your own posts on "personal data stores", but not really have any control over the distribution of the posts. All posts go through the Bluesky central server, called BGS, and they decide what to do with it. And you, as a reader, doesn't have any control of what you're reading from either, all you can do is connect to the BGS and ask for posts. If the BGS decides to ban, shadow ban, reorder, miscount, hide, deprioritize, trick or maybe even to serve ads, then you are out of luck.

Oh, but anyone can run their own BGS!, they will say. Even in their own blog post announcing the architecture they assert that "it’s a fairly resource-demanding service" and "there may be a few large full-network providers". But I fail to see why even more than one network provider will exist, if Bluesky is already doing that job, and considering the fact there are very little incentives for anyone to switch providers -- because the app does not seem to be at all made to talk to multiple providers, one would have to stop using the reliable, fast and beefy official BGS and start using some half-baked alternative and risk losing access to things.

When asked about the possibility of switching, one of Bluesky overlords said: "it would look something like this: bluesky has gone evil. there's a new alternative called freesky that people are rushing to. I'm switching to freesky".

The quote is very naïve and sounds like something that could be said about Twitter itself: "if Twitter is evil you can just run your own social network". Both are fallacies because they ignore the network-effect and the fact that people will never fully agree that something is "evil". In fact these two are the fundamental reasons why -- for social networks specifically (and not for other things like commerce) -- we need truly open protocols with no owners and no committees.

@ 9f94e6cc:f3472946

Der Entartungswettbewerb TikTok hat die Jugend im Griff und verbrutzelt ihre Hirne. Über Reels, den Siegeszug des Hochformats und die Regeln der Viralität.

Text: Aron Morhoff

Hollywood steckt heute in der Hosentasche. 70 Prozent aller YouTube-Inhalte werden auf mobilen Endgeräten, also Smartphones, geschaut. Instagram und TikTok sind die angesagtesten Anwendungen für junge Menschen. Es gibt sie nur noch als App, und ihr Design ist für Mobiltelefone optimiert.

Einst waren Rechner und Laptops die Tools, mit denen ins Internet gegangen wurde. Auch als das Smartphone seinen Siegeszug antrat, waren die Sehgewohnheiten noch auf das Querformat ausgerichtet. Heute werden Rechner fast nur noch zum Arbeiten verwendet. Das Berieseln, die Unterhaltung, das passive Konsumieren hat sich vollständig auf die iPhones und Samsungs dieser Welt verlagert. Das Telefon hat den aufrechten Gang angenommen, kaum einer mehr hält sein Gerät waagerecht.

Homo Digitalis Erectus

Die Welt steht also Kopf. Die Form eines Mediums hat Einfluss auf den Inhalt. Marshall McLuhan formulierte das so: Das Medium selbst ist die Botschaft. Ja mei, mag sich mancher denken, doch medienanthropologisch ist diese Entwicklung durchaus eine Betrachtung wert. Ein Querformat eignet sich besser, um Landschaften, einen Raum oder eine Gruppe abzubilden. Das Hochformat entspricht grob den menschlichen Maßen von der Hüfte bis zum Kopf. Der TikTok-Tanz ist im Smartphone-Design also schon angelegt. Das Hochformat hat die Medieninhalte unserer Zeit noch narzisstischer gemacht.

Dass wir uns durch Smartphones freizügiger und enthemmter zur Schau stellen, ist bekannt. 2013 wurde „Selfie“ vom Oxford English Dictionary zum Wort des Jahres erklärt. Selfie, Selbstporträt, Selbstdarstellung.

Neu ist der Aufwand, der heute vonnöten ist, um die Aufmerksamkeitsschwelle der todamüsierten Mediengesellschaft überhaupt noch zu durchbrechen. In beängstigender Hypnose erwischt man viele Zeitgenossen inzwischen beim Doomscrollen. Das ist der Fachbegriff für das weggetretene Endloswischen und erklärt auch den Namen „Reel“: Der Begriff, im Deutschen verwandt mit „Rolle“, beschreibt die Filmrolle, von der 24 Bilder pro Sekunde auf den Projektor gewischt oder eben abgespult werden.

Länger als drei Sekunden darf ein Kurzvideo deshalb nicht mehr gehen, ohne dass etwas Aufregendes passiert. Sonst wird das Reel aus Langeweile weggewischt. Die Welt im Dopamin-Rausch. Für den Ersteller eines Videos heißt das inzwischen: Sei der lauteste, schrillste, gestörteste Marktschreier. Das Wettrennen um die Augäpfel zwingt zu extremen Formen von Clickbait.

15 Sekunden Ruhm

Das nimmt inzwischen skurrile Formen an. Das Video „Look who I found“ von Noel Robinson (geboren 2001) war im letzten Jahr einer der erfolgreichsten deutschen TikTok-Clips. Man sieht den Deutsch-Nigerianer beim Antanzen eines karikaturartig übergewichtigen Menschen. Noel wird geschubst und fällt. Daraufhin wechselt das Lied – und der fette Mann bewegt seinen Schwabbelbauch im Takt. Noel steht wieder auf, grinst, beide tanzen gemeinsam. Das dauert 15 Sekunden. Ich rate Ihnen, sich das Video einmal anzuschauen, um die Mechanismen von TikTok zu verstehen. Achten Sie alleine darauf, wie vielen Reizen (Menschenmenge, Antanzen, Sturz, Schwabbelbauch) Sie in den ersten fünf Sekunden ausgesetzt sind. Wer schaut so was? Bis dato 220 Millionen Menschen. Das ist kapitalistische Verwertungslogik im bereits verwesten Endstadium. Adorno oder Fromm hätten am Medienzeitgeist entweder ihre Freude oder mächtig zu knabbern.

Die Internet- und Smartphoneabdeckung beträgt mittlerweile fast 100 Prozent. Das Überangebot hat die Regeln geändert. Um überhaupt gesehen zu werden, muss man heute viral gehen. Was dafür inzwischen nötig ist, spricht die niedrigsten Bedürfnisse des Menschen an: Gewalt, Ekel, Sexualisierung, Schock. Die jungen Erwachsenen, die heute auf sozialen Netzwerken den Ton angeben, haben diese Mechanismen längst verinnerlicht. Wie bewusst ihnen das ist, ist fraglich. 2024 prallt eine desaströse Bildungssituation samt fehlender Medienkompetenz auf eine egomanische Jugend, die Privatsphäre nie gekannt hat und seit Kindesbeinen alles in den Äther ballert, was es festhalten kann. Man muss kein Kulturpessimist sein, um diese degenerative Dynamik, auch in ihrer Implikation für unser Zusammenleben und das psychische Wohlergehen der Generation TikTok, als beängstigend zu bezeichnen.

Aron Morhoff studierte Medienethik und ist Absolvent der Freien Akademie für Medien & Journalismus. Frühere Stationen: RT Deutsch und Nuoviso. Heute: Stichpunkt Magazin, Manova, Milosz Matuschek und seine Liveshow "Addictive Programming".

@ 7abda1f2:b6c320e7

Choosing your first credit card is an important financial milestone. It can be the key to building a strong credit history, earning rewards, and managing expenses effectively. However, with so many options available, the process can feel overwhelming. Understanding the factors to consider and what to look for in a credit card can help you make an informed decision that aligns with your financial goals. This guide will walk you through the steps to pick your first credit card and set yourself up for success.

Understanding the Basics of Credit Cards Before diving into the selection process, it’s essential to understand how credit cards work. A credit card allows you to borrow money up to a certain limit, which you must repay either in full or partially by a specified due date. If you don’t pay the full balance, interest is charged on the remaining amount. Using a credit card responsibly, such as paying off the balance in full each month, helps you build a positive credit history, which is crucial for future financial endeavors like renting an apartment or applying for a loan.

Determine Your Goals for a Credit Card The first step in picking your first credit card is understanding what you want to achieve. Are you looking to build your credit score? Do you want to earn cashback or rewards on your purchases? Or are you simply seeking a convenient way to manage expenses? Identifying your primary goal will help narrow down your options. For example, if building credit is your top priority, a card with no annual fee and a simple rewards program might be the best choice. On the other hand, if rewards are your focus, look for cards that offer points or cashback on categories where you spend the most.

Consider Your Credit Profile As a first-time credit card applicant, you likely have little to no credit history. This means you might not qualify for premium cards with extensive benefits. Instead, consider beginner-friendly options such as secured credit cards, student credit cards, or cards specifically designed for individuals with limited credit histories. Secured credit cards require a deposit as collateral, which acts as your credit limit. They’re an excellent choice for building credit while minimizing risk.

Compare Annual Fees and Interest Rates When choosing your first credit card, it’s essential to compare fees and interest rates. Many beginner cards come with no annual fees, which is ideal if you’re just starting and want to avoid extra costs. Additionally, pay attention to the annual percentage rate (APR), which determines the interest charged on balances carried over from month to month. While it’s best to pay your balance in full to avoid interest altogether, choosing a card with a low APR provides a safety net if you can’t pay in full.

Look for Simplicity Over Complexity As a first-time cardholder, it’s wise to opt for a credit card with straightforward terms and benefits. Some premium cards offer complex reward structures or require you to track spending categories to maximize benefits. While these can be lucrative, they may not be the best fit for beginners. Instead, choose a card with consistent rewards, like 1-2% cashback on all purchases, or one with a focus on essential spending categories like groceries or gas.

Check for Added Perks Even beginner credit cards often come with perks that can add value. Features like fraud protection, free credit score tracking, or extended warranties on purchases are common benefits. Some cards also offer introductory bonuses, such as cashback after spending a certain amount in the first few months. While perks shouldn’t be the primary factor in your decision, they can provide additional value if they align with your needs.

Read the Fine Print It’s tempting to focus on flashy rewards and bonuses, but it’s crucial to read the fine print before applying for a credit card. Look out for hidden fees, such as late payment penalties or foreign transaction fees. Additionally, understand the terms of the rewards program, including expiration dates or limitations on redemption. Being informed about the card’s terms and conditions ensures there are no surprises down the road.

Apply for the Card That Fits Your Needs Once you’ve done your research and identified a card that aligns with your goals, it’s time to apply. Most applications can be completed online, and you’ll need to provide basic personal and financial information, such as your name, income, and Social Security number. Applying for a card you’re likely to qualify for increases your chances of approval and minimizes the risk of unnecessary credit inquiries, which can temporarily lower your credit score.

Start Building Credit Responsibly After receiving your first credit card, focus on using it responsibly to build a solid credit history. Pay your balance in full and on time each month to avoid interest charges and late fees. Keep your credit utilization low by not maxing out your card—ideally, use less than 30% of your credit limit. Monitor your credit score regularly to track your progress and ensure no errors on your credit report.

Avoid Common Pitfalls While credit cards are powerful financial tools, they can also lead to debt if not used carefully. Avoid overspending just to earn rewards or hit a bonus threshold. Additionally, don’t apply for multiple credit cards at once, as this can lower your credit score and make you appear risky to lenders. Establishing good habits early on will set the foundation for a healthy financial future.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Jofer

Jofer era um jogador diferente. À primeira vista não, parecia igual, um volante combativo, perseguia os atacantes adversários implacavelmente, um bom jogador. Mas não era essa a característica que diferenciava Jofer. Jofer era, digamos, um chutador.

Começou numa semifinal de um torneio de juniores. O time de Jofer precisava do empate e estava sofrendo uma baita pressão do adversário, mas o jogo estava 1 a 1 e parecia que ia ficar assim mesmo, daquele jeito futebolístico que parece, parece mesmo. Só que aos 46 do segundo tempo tomaram um gol espírita, Ruizinho do outro time saiu correndo pela esquerda e, mesmo sendo canhoto, foi cortando para o meio, os zagueiros meio que achando que já tinha acabado mesmo, devia ter só mais aquele lance, o árbitro tinha dado dois minutos, Ruizinho chutou, marcou e o goleiro, que só pulou depois que já tinha visto que não ia ter jeito, ficou xingando.

A bola saiu do meio e tocaram para Jofer, ninguém nem veio marcá-lo, o outro time já estava comemorando, e com razão, o juiz estava de sacanagem em fazer o jogo continuar, já estava tudo acabado mesmo. Mas não, estava certo, mais um minuto de acréscimo, justo. Em um minuto dá pra fazer um gol. Mas como? Jofer pensou nas partidas da NBA em que com alguns centésimos de segundo faltando o armador jogava de qualquer jeito para a cesta e às vezes acertava. De trás do meio de campo, será? Não vou ter nem força pra fazer chegar no gol. Vou virar piada, melhor tocar pro Fumaça ali do lado e a gente perde sem essa humilhação no final. Mas, poxa, e daí? Vou tentar mesmo assim, qualquer coisa eu falo que foi um lançamento e daqui a uns dias todo mundo esquece. Olhou para o próprio pé, virou ele de ladinho, pra fora e depois pra dentro (bom, se eu pegar daqui, direitinho, quem sabe?), jogou a bola pro lado e bateu. A bola subiu escandalosamente, muito alta mesmo, deve ter subido uns 200 metros. Jofer não tinha como ter a menor noção. Depois foi descendo, o goleirão voltando correndo para debaixo da trave e olhando pra bola, foi chegando e pulando já só pra acompanhar, para ver, dependurado no travessão, a bola sair ainda bem alta, ela bateu na rede lateral interna antes de bater no chão, quicar violentamente e estufar a rede no alto do lado direito de quem olhava.

Mas isso tudo foi sonho do Jofer. Sonhou acordado, numa noite em que demorou pra dormir, deitado na sua cama. Ficou pensando se não seria fácil, se ele treinasse bastante, acertar o gol bem de longe, tipo no sonho, e se não dava pra fazer gol assim. No dia seguinte perguntou a Brunildinho, o treinador de goleiros. Era difícil defender essas bolas, ainda mais se elas subissem muito, o goleiro ficava sem perspectiva, o vento alterava a trajetória a cada instante, tinha efeito, ela cairia rápido, mas claro que não valia à pena treinar isso, a chance de acertar o gol era minúscula. Mas Jofer só ia tentar depois que treinasse bastante e comprovasse o que na sua imaginação parecia uma excelente idéia.

Começou a treinar todos os dias. Primeiro escondido, por vergonha dos colegas, chegava um pouco antes e ficava lá, chutando do círculo central. Ao menor sinal de gente se aproximando, parava e ia catar as bolas. Depois, quando começou a acertar, perdeu a vergonha. O pessoal do clube todo achava engraçado quando via Jofer treinando e depois ouvia a explicação da boca de alguém, ninguém levava muito a sério, mas também não achava de todo ridículo. O pessoal ria, mas no fundo torcia praquilo dar certo, mesmo.

Aconteceu que num jogo que não valia muita coisa, empatezinho feio, aos 40 do segundo tempo, a marcação dos adversários já não estava mais pressionando, todo mundo contente com o empate e com vontade de parar de jogar já, o Henrique, meia-esquerdo, humilde, mas ainda assim um pouco intimidante para Jofer (jogava demais), tocou pra ele. Vai lá, tenta sua loucura aí. Assumiu a responsabilidade do nosso volante introspectivo. Seria mais verossímil se Jofer tivesse errado, primeira vez que tentou, restava muito tempo ainda pra ele ter a chance de ser herói, ninguém acerta de primeira, mas ele acertou. Quase como no sonho, Lucas, o goleiro, não esperava, depois que viu o lance, riu-se, adiantou-se para pegar a bola que ele julgava que quicaria na área, mas ela foi mais pra frente, mais e mais, daí Lucas já estava correndo, só que começou a pensar que ela ia pra fora, e ele ia só se dependurar no travessão e fazer seu papel de estar na bola. Acabou que por conta daquele gol eles terminaram em segundo no grupo daquele torneiozinho, ao invés de terceiro, e não fez diferença nenhuma.

@ 2b17f0ed:2c33ff05

It's Christmas Eve Omondi a 16 year old from Kisumu City lakeside of Kenya don't seem happy like his 25 siblings he is standing by the lake as he views the sunset his mind is focused on Bitcoin the crypto he heard over grandpa's radio. To be continued...

@ b83e6f82:73c27758

Citrine 0.6.0

• Update dependencies
• Show notifications when importing, exporting, downloading events
• Change database functions to be suspending functions

Download it with zap.store, Obtainium, f-droid or download it directly in the releases page

If you like my work consider making a donation

Verifying the release

In order to verify the release, you'll need to have gpg or gpg2 installed on your system. Once you've obtained a copy (and hopefully verified that as well), you'll first need to import the keys that have signed this release if you haven't done so already:

bash gpg --keyserver hkps://keys.openpgp.org --recv-keys 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D

Once you have his PGP key you can verify the release (assuming manifest-v0.6.0.txt and manifest-v0.6.0.txt.sig are in the current directory) with:

bash gpg --verify manifest-v0.6.0.txt.sig manifest-v0.6.0.txt

You should see the following if the verification was successful:

bash gpg: Signature made Fri 13 Sep 2024 08:06:52 AM -03 gpg: using RSA key 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D gpg: Good signature from "greenart7c3 <greenart7c3@proton.me>"

That will verify the signature on the main manifest page which ensures integrity and authenticity of the binaries you've downloaded locally. Next, depending on your operating system you should then re-calculate the sha256 sum of the binary, and compare that with the following hashes:

bash cat manifest-v0.6.0.txt

One can use the shasum -a 256 <file name here> tool in order to re-compute the sha256 hash of the target binary for your operating system. The produced hash should be compared with the hashes listed above and they should match exactly.

@ 76c71aae:3e29cafa

On social media and in the Nostr space in particular, there’s been a lot of debate about the idea of supporting deletion and editing of notes.

Some people think they’re vital features to have, others believe that more honest and healthy social media will come from getting rid of these features. The discussion about these features quickly turns to the feasibility of completely deleting something on a decentralized protocol. We quickly get to the “We can’t really delete anything from the internet, or a decentralized network.” argument. This crowds out how Delete and Edit can mimic elements of offline interactions, how they can be used as social signals.

When it comes to issues of deletion and editing content, what matters more is if the creator can communicate their intentions around their content. Sure, on the internet, with decentralized protocols, there’s no way to be sure something’s deleted. It’s not like taking a piece of paper and burning it. Computers make copies of things all the time, computers don’t like deleting things. In particular, distributed systems tend to use a Kafka architecture with immutable logs, it’s just easier to keep everything around, as deleting and reindexing is hard. Even if the software could be made to delete something, there’s always screenshots, or even pictures of screens. We can’t provably make something disappear.

What we need to do in our software is clearly express intention. A delete is actually a kind of retraction. “I no longer want to associate myself with this content, please stop showing it to people as part of what I’ve published, stop highlighting it, stop sharing it.” Even if a relay or other server keeps a copy, and keeps sharing it, being able to clearly state “hello world, this thing I said, was a mistake, please get rid of it.” Just giving users the chance to say “I deleted this” is a way of showing intention. It’s also a way of signaling that feedback has been heard. Perhaps the post was factually incorrect or perhaps it was mean and the person wants to remove what they said. In an IRL conversation, for either of these scenarios there is some dialogue where the creator of the content is learning something and taking action based on what they’ve learned.

Without delete or edit, there is no option to signal to the rest of the community that you have learned something because of how the content is structured today. On most platforms a reply or response stating one’s learning will be lost often in a deluge of replies on the original post and subsequent posts are often not seen especially when the original goes viral. By providing tools like delete and edit we give people a chance to signal that they have heard the feedback and taken action.

The Nostr Protocol supports delete and expiring notes. It was one of the reasons we switched from secure scuttlebutt to build on Nostr. Our nos.social app offers delete and while we know that not all relays will honor this, we believe it’s important to provide social signaling tools as a means of making the internet more humane.

We believe that the power to learn from each other is more important than the need to police through moral outrage which is how the current platforms and even some Nostr clients work today.

It’s important that we don’t say Nostr doesn’t support delete. Not all apps need to support requesting a delete, some might want to call it a retraction. It is important that users know there is no way to enforce a delete and not all relays may honor their request.

Edit is similar, although not as widely supported as delete. It’s a creator making a clear statement that they’ve created a new version of their content. Maybe it’s a spelling error, or a new version of the content, or maybe they’re changing it altogether. Freedom online means freedom to retract a statement, freedom to update a statement, freedom to edit your own content. By building on these freedoms, we’ll make Nostr a space where people feel empowered and in control of their own media.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Im Frühjahr kündigte EU-Kommissarin Ursula von der Leyen an, sie wolle einen „ Europäischen Demokratieschild " schaffen, um die EU vor ausländischer Einflussnahme zu schützen. Von der Leyens Demokratieschild befindet sich derzeit in der Planungsphase. Die erklärte Absicht besteht darin, eine „ spezielle Struktur zur Bekämpfung ausländischer Informationsmanipulation und -einmischung" zu schaffen. Obwohl es als Instrument zum Schutz der Demokratie angepriesen wird, vermuten einige, dass es sich in Wirklichkeit um einen verschleierten Versuch handelt, abweichende Meinungen zu unterdrücken. Der im vergangenen Jahr verabschiedete Digital Services Act (DSA) der EU ist eng mit diesem Schild verbunden. Durch den DSA riskieren große Social-Media-Plattformen wie Elon Musks X erhebliche Geldstrafen, wenn sie den Forderungen der EU-Bürokraten nach Zensur und Moderation nicht nachkommen.

Note: This text is also available in English at substack.com. Many thanks to stroger1@iris.to for this German translation.

Im krassen Gegensatz dazu hat sich der künftige US-Präsident Donald Trump als klarer Befürworter der Meinungsfreiheit und entschiedener Gegner der Zensur hervorgetan. Er wurde bereits von YouTube gesperrt, hat jedoch erklärt, er wolle „das linke Zensurregime zerschlagen und das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung für alle Amerikaner zurückfordern" . Er hat auch behauptet: „Wenn wir keine freie Meinungsäußerung haben, dann haben wir einfach kein freies Land."

Sein künftiger Vizepräsident J.D. Vance hat sogar angedeutet, dass er bereit sei, US-Militärhilfe von der Achtung der Meinungsfreiheit in den europäischen NATO-Ländern abhängig zu machen. Vances Aussage erfolgte, nachdem EU-Binnenmarktkommissar Thierry Breton vor seinem geplanten Gespräch mit Trump einen umstrittenen Brief an Musk geschickt hatte. Heute erscheint dies als unkluger Schritt, nicht zuletzt, weil er als Versuch gewertet werden kann, die US-Wahl zu beeinflussen -- etwas, das paradoxerweise dem erklärten Zweck von von der Leyens Demokratieschild (d. h. ausländische Manipulationen zu bekämpfen) widerspricht.

Wenn die NATO möchte, dass wir sie weiterhin unterstützen, und die NATO möchte, dass wir weiterhin ein gutes Mitglied dieses Militärbündnisses sind, warum respektieren Sie dann nicht die amerikanischen Werte und die freie Meinungsäußerung?

- J.D. Vance

In der EU sind Verfechter der Meinungsfreiheit in der Öffentlichkeit weniger verbreitet. In Deutschland hat Vizekanzler Robert Habeck kürzlich erklärt, er sei „überhaupt nicht glücklich darüber, was dort [auf X] passiert ... seit Elon Musk das Amt übernommen hat", und wünscht sich eine strengere Regulierung der sozialen Medien. Die Wohnung eines deutschen Rentners wurde kürzlich von der Polizei durchsucht, nachdem er ein Bild von Habeck mit einem abfälligen Kommentar veröffentlicht hatte . Die deutsche Polizei verfolgt auch einen anderen Kontoinhaber, der einen Minister als „übergewichtig" bezeichnet hat. Dieser überhaupt nicht übergewichtige Minister hat kürzlich eine Zeitung verboten , die mit der laut Meinungsumfragen zweitgrößten Partei Deutschlands, der Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), verbündet ist. Eine Partei, die 113 deutsche Parlamentarier nun offiziell verbieten wollen .

Nach dem US-Wahlergebnis stellen sich viele unbeantwortete Fragen. Wird das Weiße Haus seine Aufmerksamkeit auf die restriktivere Haltung der EU richten, die als Untergrabung der freien Meinungsäußerung angesehen werden kann? Oder droht Musks X und Chinas TikTok stattdessen ein EU-Verbot? Können EU-Länder noch mit militärischer Unterstützung aus den USA rechnen? Und wenn große amerikanische Plattformen verboten werden, wohin sollten sich die EU-Bürger stattdessen wenden? Abgesehen von russischen Alternativen gibt es keine großen europäischen Plattformen. Und wenn die Frage der Meinungsfreiheit neu überdacht wird, was bedeutet das für die Zukunft von Parteien wie der deutschen AfD?

@ 85cd42e2:0e6f2173

Are there long arcs of your life underwritten by unshakable exhaustion? A nameless and persistent tiredness that no amount of sleep satisfies. Don't gaslight yourself into thinking this is due to diet, which may be partly true, but the lion's share of that fatigue is a phantom one can never quite put a thumb on. There is a powerful tool to fight against this: Bitcoin.

Bitcoin helps one to see inflation for what it is. Not through the lens of government statistics and Keynsian pseudoscience, but truly see the sprawling roots of inflation diving deep into civilization day-to-day. For the first time, humanity can understand that it is being robbed, not by theft of dollars, but by dilution of dollars. All at once, the looming anxiety that persists even when dollars are abundant finally makes sense. Our subconscious mind is aware of the theft, even though it can't name that evil. The collective subconscious is working overtime, exhausting us, trying to warn us that poverty is looming. It is a warning not to trust the numbers. Our minds quietly thrash against the fiat debt trap that is closing in around us. It is winnowing down the destinies of men to a single narrow path decided by politicians and bankers. This is the root of fiat fatigue.

Three things accompany this revelation. Firstly, this knowledge is vindication for many who are haunted by the hubris of baby boomers who criticize young generations for not working hard enough. The next generation should be like their parents, who destroyed their backs, wills, and families for a coveted place in one of the most exploited economic classes in history: suburbia. While a luxurious form of serfdom, it is slavery nonetheless for most: slavery of the soul. Second, this knowledge is freedom. Once you can see how the trap functions, the escape hatch is clear: Bitcoin. Third, this knowledge is distilled grief. The realization that almost none of one's loved ones can make enough income to reach the economic escape velocity required to leave the fiat slavery system is heavy. Even those who escape pay a pound of flesh to defy fiat's gravitational pull. Most are spiritually deformed or emotionally maimed. Many walk around with this invisible yoke on their necks, being fooled into thinking it is they who have done something wrong, or worse, that the "rich," that vague and low-hanging scapegoat, have exploited them. They don't know that unmanipulated hard money, as it was intended to be, is life-giving and not burdensome. They don't know that real money is fair and just. They will carry this burden for the rest of their lives, and it will destroy many.

Are you weary? Stack Bitcoin like a religion; it will give you back stolen time and energy in spades. It will help humanity to see the world as it truly is, beautiful and peaceful. Bitcoin is rest.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

O caso da Grêmio TV

enquanto vinha se conduzindo pela plataforma superior daquela arena que se pensava totalmente preenchida por adeptos da famosa equipe do Grêmio de Porto Alegre, viu-se, como por obra de algum nigromante - dos muitos que existem e estão a todo momento a fazer más obras e a colocar-se no caminhos dos que procuram, se não fazer o bem acima de todas as coisas, a pelo menos não fazer o mal no curso da realização dos seus interesses -, o discretíssimo jornalista a ser xingado e moído em palavras por uma horda de malandrinos a cinco ou seis passos dele surgida que cantavam e moviam seus braços em movimentos que não se pode classificar senão como bárbaros, e assim cantavam:

Grêmio TV pior que o SBT !

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Drivechain

Understanding Drivechain requires a shift from the paradigm most bitcoiners are used to. It is not about "trustlessness" or "mathematical certainty", but game theory and incentives. (Well, Bitcoin in general is also that, but people prefer to ignore it and focus on some illusion of trustlessness provided by mathematics.)

Here we will describe the basic mechanism (simple) and incentives (complex) of "hashrate escrow" and how it enables a 2-way peg between the mainchain (Bitcoin) and various sidechains.

The full concept of "Drivechain" also involves blind merged mining (i.e., the sidechains mine themselves by publishing their block hashes to the mainchain without the miners having to run the sidechain software), but this is much easier to understand and can be accomplished either by the BIP-301 mechanism or by the Spacechains mechanism.

How does hashrate escrow work from the point of view of Bitcoin?

A new address type is created. Anything that goes in that is locked and can only be spent if all miners agree on the Withdrawal Transaction (WT^) that will spend it for 6 months. There is one of these special addresses for each sidechain.

To gather miners' agreement bitcoind keeps track of the "score" of all transactions that could possibly spend from that address. On every block mined, for each sidechain, the miner can use a portion of their coinbase to either increase the score of one WT^ by 1 while decreasing the score of all others by 1; or they can decrease the score of all WT^s by 1; or they can do nothing.

Once a transaction has gotten a score high enough, it is published and funds are effectively transferred from the sidechain to the withdrawing users.

If a timeout of 6 months passes and the score doesn't meet the threshold, that WT^ is discarded.

What does the above procedure mean?

It means that people can transfer coins from the mainchain to a sidechain by depositing to the special address. Then they can withdraw from the sidechain by making a special withdraw transaction in the sidechain.

The special transaction somehow freezes funds in the sidechain while a transaction that aggregates all withdrawals into a single mainchain WT^, which is then submitted to the mainchain miners so they can start voting on it and finally after some months it is published.

Now the crucial part: the validity of the WT^ is not verified by the Bitcoin mainchain rules, i.e., if Bob has requested a withdraw from the sidechain to his mainchain address, but someone publishes a wrong WT^ that instead takes Bob's funds and sends them to Alice's main address there is no way the mainchain will know that. What determines the "validity" of the WT^ is the miner vote score and only that. It is the job of miners to vote correctly -- and for that they may want to run the sidechain node in SPV mode so they can attest for the existence of a reference to the WT^ transaction in the sidechain blockchain (which then ensures it is ok) or do these checks by some other means.

What? 6 months to get my money back?

Yes. But no, in practice anyone who wants their money back will be able to use an atomic swap, submarine swap or other similar service to transfer funds from the sidechain to the mainchain and vice-versa. The long delayed withdraw costs would be incurred by few liquidity providers that would gain some small profit from it.

Why bother with this at all?

Drivechains solve many different problems:

It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin

Issued assets, fully private transactions, stateful blockchain contracts, turing-completeness, decentralized games, some "DeFi" aspects, prediction markets, futarchy, decentralized and yet meaningful human-readable names, big blocks with a ton of normal transactions on them, a chain optimized only for Lighting-style networks to be built on top of it.

These are some ideas that may have merit to them, but were never actually tried because they couldn't be tried with real Bitcoin or inferfacing with real bitcoins. They were either relegated to the shitcoin territory or to custodial solutions like Liquid or RSK that may have failed to gain network effect because of that.

It solves conflicts and infighting

Some people want fully private transactions in a UTXO model, others want "accounts" they can tie to their name and build reputation on top; some people want simple multisig solutions, others want complex code that reads a ton of variables; some people want to put all the transactions on a global chain in batches every 10 minutes, others want off-chain instant transactions backed by funds previously locked in channels; some want to spend, others want to just hold; some want to use blockchain technology to solve all the problems in the world, others just want to solve money.

With Drivechain-based sidechains all these groups can be happy simultaneously and don't fight. Meanwhile they will all be using the same money and contributing to each other's ecosystem even unwillingly, it's also easy and free for them to change their group affiliation later, which reduces cognitive dissonance.

It solves "scaling"

Multiple chains like the ones described above would certainly do a lot to accomodate many more transactions that the current Bitcoin chain can. One could have special Lightning Network chains, but even just big block chains or big-block-mimblewimble chains or whatnot could probably do a good job. Or even something less cool like 200 independent chains just like Bitcoin is today, no extra features (and you can call it "sharding"), just that would already multiply the current total capacity by 200.

Use your imagination.

It solves the blockchain security budget issue

The calculation is simple: you imagine what security budget is reasonable for each block in a world without block subsidy and divide that for the amount of bytes you can fit in a single block: that is the price to be paid in satoshis per byte. In reasonable estimative, the price necessary for every Bitcoin transaction goes to very large amounts, such that not only any day-to-day transaction has insanely prohibitive costs, but also Lightning channel opens and closes are impracticable.

So without a solution like Drivechain you'll be left with only one alternative: pushing Bitcoin usage to trusted services like Liquid and RSK or custodial Lightning wallets. With Drivechain, though, there could be thousands of transactions happening in sidechains and being all aggregated into a sidechain block that would then pay a very large fee to be published (via blind merged mining) to the mainchain. Bitcoin security guaranteed.

It keeps Bitcoin decentralized

Once we have sidechains to accomodate the normal transactions, the mainchain functionality can be reduced to be only a "hub" for the sidechains' comings and goings, and then the maximum block size for the mainchain can be reduced to, say, 100kb, which would make running a full node very very easy.

Can miners steal?

Yes. If a group of coordinated miners are able to secure the majority of the hashpower and keep their coordination for 6 months, they can publish a WT^ that takes the money from the sidechains and pays to themselves.

Will miners steal?

No, because the incentives are such that they won't.

Although it may look at first that stealing is an obvious strategy for miners as it is free money, there are many costs involved:

1. The cost of ceasing blind-merged mining returns -- as stealing will kill a sidechain, all the fees from it that miners would be expected to earn for the next years are gone;
2. The cost of Bitcoin price going down: If a steal is successful that will mean Drivechains are not safe, therefore Bitcoin is less useful, and miner credibility will also be hurt, which are likely to cause the Bitcoin price to go down, which in turn may kill the miners' businesses and savings;
3. The cost of coordination -- assuming miners are just normal businesses, they just want to do their work and get paid, but stealing from a Drivechain will require coordination with other miners to conduct an immoral act in a way that has many pitfalls and is likely to be broken over the months;
4. The cost of miners leaving your mining pool: when we talked about "miners" above we were actually talking about mining pools operators, so they must also consider the risk of miners migrating from their mining pool to others as they begin the process of stealing;
5. The cost of community goodwill -- when participating in a steal operation, a miner will suffer a ton of backlash from the community. Even if the attempt fails at the end, the fact that it was attempted will contribute to growing concerns over exaggerated miners power over the Bitcoin ecosystem, which may end up causing the community to agree on a hard-fork to change the mining algorithm in the future, or to do something to increase participation of more entities in the mining process (such as development or cheapment of new ASICs), which have a chance of decreasing the profits of current miners.

Another point to take in consideration is that one may be inclined to think a newly-created sidechain or a sidechain with relatively low usage may be more easily stolen from, since the blind merged mining returns from it (point 1 above) are going to be small -- but the fact is also that a sidechain with small usage will also have less money to be stolen from, and since the other costs besides 1 are less elastic at the end it will not be worth stealing from these too.

All of the above consideration are valid only if miners are stealing from good sidechains. If there is a sidechain that is doing things wrong, scamming people, not being used at all, or is full of bugs, for example, that will be perceived as a bad sidechain, and then miners can and will safely steal from it and kill it, which will be perceived as a good thing by everybody.

What do we do if miners steal?

Paul Sztorc has suggested in the past that a user-activated soft-fork could prevent miners from stealing, i.e., most Bitcoin users and nodes issue a rule similar to this one to invalidate the inclusion of a faulty WT^ and thus cause any miner that includes it in a block to be relegated to their own Bitcoin fork that other nodes won't accept.

This suggestion has made people think Drivechain is a sidechain solution backed by user-actived soft-forks for safety, which is very far from the truth. Drivechains must not and will not rely on this kind of soft-fork, although they are possible, as the coordination costs are too high and no one should ever expect these things to happen.

If even with all the incentives against them (see above) miners do still steal from a good sidechain that will mean the failure of the Drivechain experiment. It will very likely also mean the failure of the Bitcoin experiment too, as it will be proven that miners can coordinate to act maliciously over a prolonged period of time regardless of economic and social incentives, meaning they are probably in it just for attacking Bitcoin, backed by nation-states or something else, and therefore no Bitcoin transaction in the mainchain is to be expected to be safe ever again.

Why use this and not a full-blown trustless and open sidechain technology?

Because it is impossible.

If you ever heard someone saying "just use a sidechain", "do this in a sidechain" or anything like that, be aware that these people are either talking about "federated" sidechains (i.e., funds are kept in custody by a group of entities) or they are talking about Drivechain, or they are disillusioned and think it is possible to do sidechains in any other manner.

No, I mean a trustless 2-way peg with correctness of the withdrawals verified by the Bitcoin protocol!

That is not possible unless Bitcoin verifies all transactions that happen in all the sidechains, which would be akin to drastically increasing the blocksize and expanding the Bitcoin rules in tons of ways, i.e., a terrible idea that no one wants.

What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper?

Yes, that was a way to do it. The Drivechain hashrate escrow is a conceptually simpler way to achieve the same thing with improved incentives, less junk in the chain, more safety.

Isn't the hashrate escrow a very complex soft-fork?

Yes, but it is much simpler than SegWit. And, unlike SegWit, it doesn't force anything on users, i.e., it isn't a mandatory blocksize increase.

Why should we expect miners to care enough to participate in the voting mechanism?

Because it's in their own self-interest to do it, and it costs very little. Today over half of the miners mine RSK. It's not blind merged mining, it's a very convoluted process that requires them to run a RSK full node. For the Drivechain sidechains, an SPV node would be enough, or maybe just getting data from a block explorer API, so much much simpler.

What if I still don't like Drivechain even after reading this?

That is the entire point! You don't have to like it or use it as long as you're fine with other people using it. The hashrate escrow special addresses will not impact you at all, validation cost is minimal, and you get the benefit of people who want to use Drivechain migrating to their own sidechains and freeing up space for you in the mainchain. See also the point above about infighting.

See also

• Podcast episode with Ruben Somsen and Aaron van Wirdum explaining Drivechain
• Alternatives to Drivechain
• Drivechain comparison with Ethereum

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Germany, the EU's largest economy, is once again forced to bear the label "Europe's sick man". The economic news makes for dismal reading. Industrial production has been trending downward for a long time. Energy-intensive production has decreased by as much as 20% in just a few years. Volkswagen is closing factories. Thyssenkrupp is laying off employees and more than three million pensioners are at risk of poverty according to a study.

Germany is facing a number of major challenges, including high energy costs and increased competition from China. In 2000, Germany accounted for 8% of global industrial production, but by 2030, its share is expected to have fallen to 3%. In comparison, China accounted for 2% of global industrial production in 2000, but is expected to account for nearly half (45%) of industrial production in a few years. This is according to a report from the UN's Industrial Development Organization.

Germany's electricity prices are five times higher than China's, a situation that poses a significant obstacle to maintaining a competitive position. The three main reasons are the phase-out of nuclear power, the sabotage of Nord Stream, and the ongoing energy transition, also known as Energiewende. Upon closer inspection, it is clear that industrial production has been trending downward since the transition to a greener economy began to be prioritized.

Germany's former defense minister, EU Commission President von der Leyen, called the European Green Deal Europe's "man on the moon" moment in 2019. This year, she has launched increased focus on these green goals.

However, the EU as a whole has fallen behind the US year after year. European companies have significantly higher energy costs than their American competitors, with electricity prices 2-3 times higher and natural gas prices 4-5 times higher.

The Environmental Kuznets Curve is a model that examines the relationship between economic growth and environmental impact. The idea is that increased material prosperity initially leads to more environmental degradation, but after a certain threshold is passed, there is a gradual decrease. Decreased material prosperity can thus, according to the relationship, lead to increased environmental degradation, for example due to changed consumption habits (fewer organic products in the shopping basket).

This year's election has resulted in a historic change, where all incumbent government parties in the Western world have seen their popularity decline. The pattern appears to be repeating itself in Germany next year, where Chancellor Olaf Scholz is struggling with low confidence figures ahead of the election in February, which doesn't seem surprising. Adjusted for inflation, German wages are several percent lower than a few years ago, especially in the manufacturing industry.

Germany is still a very rich country, but the current trend towards deindustrialization and falling wages can have consequences for environmental priorities in the long run. Economic difficulties can lead to environmental issues being downgraded. Perhaps the declining support for incumbent government parties is a first sign? Somewhere along the road to poverty, people will rise up in revolt.

@ 50041f6c:cb61480b

Bicycle accidents in San Francisco are an unfortunate reality for many cyclists navigating the city’s bustling streets. With its hilly terrain, narrow lanes, and high volume of traffic, San Francisco poses unique challenges for those who choose two wheels over four. While biking offers a sustainable and enjoyable way to travel, accidents can occur, leaving cyclists vulnerable to injuries and financial burdens. Understanding your legal rights and following safety practices can help protect both your physical and financial well-being.

The Prevalence of Bicycle Accidents in San Francisco San Francisco is a bike-friendly city, with many designated lanes and community initiatives encouraging cycling. However, the increasing number of cyclists sharing the road with cars, buses, and pedestrians inevitably leads to accidents. Data from local authorities reveals that intersections and areas with heavy traffic are hotspots for bicycle collisions. Common causes include distracted driving, dooring incidents (when a parked car door is opened into a cyclist’s path), failure to yield, and unsafe road conditions.

Bicycle accidents often result in significant injuries due to the lack of physical protection for cyclists compared to drivers. Injuries range from minor scrapes to serious conditions like fractures, head trauma, or spinal injuries. In some cases, these accidents can lead to life-altering disabilities or even fatalities.

Legal Rights for Cyclists in San Francisco If you are involved in a bicycle accident in San Francisco, it is crucial to understand your legal rights. California law recognizes cyclists as legitimate road users, giving them the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. This means that when an accident occurs, cyclists can seek compensation for damages caused by another party's negligence.

1. Filing a Claim After an accident, you may file a personal injury claim against the at-fault party to recover costs related to medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and pain and suffering. To strengthen your claim, document the accident scene thoroughly. Take photos, gather witness statements, and obtain a copy of the police report. Seeking medical attention immediately is also essential, even if your injuries seem minor, as some symptoms may appear later.

2. Comparative Negligence California follows a "comparative negligence" system, which means you can still recover damages even if you are partially at fault. For instance, if you were not wearing a helmet or failed to use hand signals, the court may assign you a percentage of fault, and your compensation will be reduced accordingly.

3. Time Limit for Filing It’s important to note the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in California. Typically, you have two years from the date of the accident to file a claim. If the accident involves a government entity, such as a city bus, the time frame is significantly shorter—just six months.

Safety Tips for Cyclists While understanding your legal rights is essential, prevention remains the best strategy. Here are practical safety tips to minimize the risk of accidents and protect yourself on San Francisco’s roads.

1. Wear Proper Gear Always wear a helmet, even if it is not legally required for adult cyclists in California. A well-fitted helmet can significantly reduce the risk of head injuries in case of an accident. Reflective clothing and lights on your bike can also improve visibility, especially during foggy mornings or nighttime rides.

2. Follow Traffic Laws Obeying traffic laws is non-negotiable. Stop at red lights and stop signs, signal your turns, and yield to pedestrians. Treat your bicycle as you would a car when navigating the streets. San Francisco has strict laws regarding cycling behavior, and adherence to these rules not only keeps you safe but also strengthens your case if you’re involved in an accident.

3. Be Aware of Your Surroundings Defensive cycling is key to avoiding accidents. Stay vigilant for sudden car movements, potholes, and pedestrians crossing unexpectedly. Avoid riding in the "door zone" next to parked cars and always scan the road ahead for potential hazards.

4. Stick to Bike-Friendly Routes San Francisco offers a variety of bike-friendly routes and designated bike lanes. Use apps or maps to find the safest and most convenient paths for your journey. Routes like the Embarcadero or the Wiggle are popular among cyclists for their reduced traffic and ease of navigation.

5. Regularly Maintain Your Bicycle A well-maintained bike is less likely to contribute to accidents. Check your brakes, tires, and lights before every ride. Ensuring your bike is in good working condition can prevent mechanical failures that might lead to dangerous situations.

What to Do After a Bicycle Accident If you are involved in a bicycle accident, knowing what steps to take can protect your rights and help you recover compensation:

Ensure Safety First: Move out of traffic if you can, but avoid leaving the scene. Call for Help: Contact the police and request medical assistance if needed. Document the Scene: Take photos of the accident, including damages, injuries, and road conditions. Exchange Information: Get the other party's contact details and insurance information. Seek Legal Advice: Consult a personal injury lawyer experienced in bicycle accidents to guide you through the legal process.

Bicycle accidents in San Francisco are an unfortunate consequence of the city’s busy streets. However, cyclists can proactively stay safe and protect their rights. By following traffic laws, wearing proper gear, and knowing your legal options, you can reduce the risk of accidents and navigate the aftermath with confidence if one occurs. Cycling should be an enjoyable and sustainable mode of transport, and a little preparedness can go a long way in ensuring it remains that way.

@ 16d11430:61640947

At the intersection of philosophy, theology, physics, biology, and finance lies a terrifying truth: the fiat monetary system, in its current form, is not just an economic framework but a silent, relentless force actively working against humanity's survival. It isn't simply a failed financial model—it is a systemic engine of destruction, both externally and within the very core of our biological existence.

The Philosophical Void of Fiat

Philosophy has long questioned the nature of value and the meaning of human existence. From Socrates to Kant, thinkers have pondered the pursuit of truth, beauty, and virtue. But in the modern age, the fiat system has hijacked this discourse. The notion of "value" in a fiat world is no longer rooted in human potential or natural resources—it is abstracted, manipulated, and controlled by central authorities with the sole purpose of perpetuating their own power. The currency is not a reflection of society’s labor or resources; it is a representation of faith in an authority that, more often than not, breaks that faith with reckless monetary policies and hidden inflation.

The fiat system has created a kind of ontological nihilism, where the idea of true value, rooted in work, creativity, and family, is replaced with speculative gambling and short-term gains. This betrayal of human purpose at the systemic level feeds into a philosophical despair: the relentless devaluation of effort, the erosion of trust, and the abandonment of shared human values. In this nihilistic economy, purpose and meaning become increasingly difficult to find, leaving millions to question the very foundation of their existence.

Theological Implications: Fiat and the Collapse of the Sacred

Religious traditions have long linked moral integrity with the stewardship of resources and the preservation of life. Fiat currency, however, corrupts these foundational beliefs. In the theological narrative of creation, humans are given dominion over the Earth, tasked with nurturing and protecting it for future generations. But the fiat system promotes the exact opposite: it commodifies everything—land, labor, and life—treating them as mere transactions on a ledger.

This disrespect for creation is an affront to the divine. In many theologies, creation is meant to be sustained, a delicate balance that mirrors the harmony of the divine order. Fiat systems—by continuously printing money and driving inflation—treat nature and humanity as expendable resources to be exploited for short-term gains, leading to environmental degradation and societal collapse. The creation narrative, in which humans are called to be stewards, is inverted. The fiat system, through its unholy alliance with unrestrained growth and unsustainable debt, is destroying the very creation it should protect.

Furthermore, the fiat system drives idolatry of power and wealth. The central banks and corporations that control the money supply have become modern-day gods, their decrees shaping the lives of billions, while the masses are enslaved by debt and inflation. This form of worship isn't overt, but it is profound. It leads to a world where people place their faith not in God or their families, but in the abstract promises of institutions that serve their own interests.

Physics and the Infinite Growth Paradox

Physics teaches us that the universe is finite—resources, energy, and space are all limited. Yet, the fiat system operates under the delusion of infinite growth. Central banks print money without concern for natural limits, encouraging an economy that assumes unending expansion. This is not only an economic fallacy; it is a physical impossibility.

In thermodynamics, the Second Law states that entropy (disorder) increases over time in any closed system. The fiat system operates as if the Earth were an infinite resource pool, perpetually able to expand without consequence. The real world, however, does not bend to these abstract concepts of infinite growth. Resources are finite, ecosystems are fragile, and human capacity is limited. Fiat currency, by promoting unsustainable consumption and growth, accelerates the depletion of resources and the degradation of natural systems that support life itself.

Even the financial “growth” driven by fiat policies leads to unsustainable bubbles—inflated stock markets, real estate, and speculative assets that burst and leave ruin in their wake. These crashes aren’t just economic—they have profound biological consequences. The cycles of boom and bust undermine communities, erode social stability, and increase anxiety and depression, all of which affect human health at a biological level.

Biology: The Fiat System and the Destruction of Human Health

Biologically, the fiat system is a cancerous growth on human society. The constant chase for growth and the devaluation of work leads to chronic stress, which is one of the leading causes of disease in modern society. The strain of living in a system that values speculation over well-being results in a biological feedback loop: rising anxiety, poor mental health, physical diseases like cardiovascular disorders, and a shortening of lifespans.

Moreover, the focus on profit and short-term returns creates a biological disconnect between humans and the planet. The fiat system fuels industries that destroy ecosystems, increase pollution, and deplete resources at unsustainable rates. These actions are not just environmentally harmful; they directly harm human biology. The degradation of the environment—whether through toxic chemicals, pollution, or resource extraction—has profound biological effects on human health, causing respiratory diseases, cancers, and neurological disorders.

The biological cost of the fiat system is not a distant theory; it is being paid every day by millions in the form of increased health risks, diseases linked to stress, and the growing burden of mental health disorders. The constant uncertainty of an inflation-driven economy exacerbates these conditions, creating a society of individuals whose bodies and minds are under constant strain. We are witnessing a systemic biological unraveling, one in which the very act of living is increasingly fraught with pain, instability, and the looming threat of collapse.

Finance as the Final Illusion

At the core of the fiat system is a fundamental illusion—that financial growth can occur without any real connection to tangible value. The abstraction of currency, the manipulation of interest rates, and the constant creation of new money hide the underlying truth: the system is built on nothing but faith. When that faith falters, the entire system collapses.

This illusion has become so deeply embedded that it now defines the human experience. Work no longer connects to production or creation—it is reduced to a transaction on a spreadsheet, a means to acquire more fiat currency in a world where value is ephemeral and increasingly disconnected from human reality.

As we pursue ever-expanding wealth, the fundamental truths of biology—interdependence, sustainability, and balance—are ignored. The fiat system’s abstract financial models serve to disconnect us from the basic realities of life: that we are part of an interconnected world where every action has a reaction, where resources are finite, and where human health, both mental and physical, depends on the stability of our environment and our social systems.

The Ultimate Extermination

In the end, the fiat system is not just an economic issue; it is a biological, philosophical, theological, and existential threat to the very survival of humanity. It is a force that devalues human effort, encourages environmental destruction, fosters inequality, and creates pain at the core of the human biological condition. It is an economic framework that leads not to prosperity, but to extermination—not just of species, but of the very essence of human well-being.

To continue on this path is to accept the slow death of our species, one based not on natural forces, but on our own choice to worship the abstract over the real, the speculative over the tangible. The fiat system isn't just a threat; it is the ultimate self-inflicted wound, a cultural and financial cancer that, if left unchecked, will destroy humanity’s chance for survival and peace.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Replacing the web with something saner

This is a simplification, but let's say that basically there are just 3 kinds of websites:

1. Websites with content: text, images, videos;
2. Websites that run full apps that do a ton of interactive stuff;
3. Websites with some interactive content that uses JavaScript, or "mini-apps";

In a saner world we would have 3 different ways of serving and using these. 1 would be "the web" (and it was for a while, although I'm not claiming here that the past is always better and wanting to get back to the glorious old days).

1 would stay as "the web", just static sites, styled with CSS, no JavaScript whatsoever, but designers can still thrive and make they look pretty. Or it could also be something like Gemini. Maybe the two protocols could coexist.

2 would be downloadable native apps, much easier to write and maintain for developers (considering that multi-platform and cross-compilation is easy today and getting easier), faster, more polished experience for users, more powerful, integrates better with the computer.

(Remember that since no one would be striving to make the same app run both on browsers and natively no one would have any need for Electron or other inefficient bloated solutions, just pure native UI, like the Telegram app, have you seen that? It's fast.)

But 2 is mostly for apps that people use every day, something like Google Docs, email (although email is also broken technology), Netflix, Twitter, Trello and so on, and all those hundreds of niche SaaS that people pay monthly fees to use, each tailored to a different industry (although most of functions they all implement are the same everywhere). What do we do with dynamic open websites like StackOverflow, for example, where one needs to not only read, but also search and interact in multiple ways? What about that website that asks you a bunch of questions and then discovers the name of the person you're thinking about? What about that mini-app that calculates the hash of your provided content or shrinks your video, or that one that hosts your image without asking any questions?

All these and tons of others would fall into category 3, that of instantly loaded apps that you don't have to install, and yet they run in a sandbox.

The key for making category 3 worth investing time into is coming up with some solid grounds, simple enough that anyone can implement in multiple different ways, but not giving the app too much choices.

Telegram or Discord bots are super powerful platforms that can accomodate most kinds of app in them. They can't beat a native app specifically made with one purpose, but they allow anyone to provide instantly usable apps with very low overhead, and since the experience is so simple, intuitive and fast, users tend to like it and sometimes even pay for their services. There could exist a protocol that brings apps like that to the open world of (I won't say "web") domains and the websockets protocol -- with multiple different clients, each making their own decisions on how to display the content sent by the servers that are powering these apps.

Another idea is that of Alan Kay: to design a nice little OS/virtual machine that can load these apps and run them. Kinda like browsers are today, but providing a more well-thought, native-like experience and framework, but still sandboxed. And I add: abstracting away details about design, content disposition and so on.

---

These 3 kinds of programs could coexist peacefully. 2 are just standalone programs, they can do anything and each will be its own thing. 1 and 3, however, are still similar to browsers of today in the sense that you need clients to interact with servers and show to the user what they are asking. But by simplifying everything and separating the scopes properly these clients would be easy to write, efficient, small, the environment would be open and the internet would be saved.

See also

• On the state of programs and browsers

@ 50041f6c:cb61480b

Managing credit card bills can often feel like a daunting task, especially if balances start to pile up or payments are missed. However, with some strategic adjustments, it is possible to stay on top of your payments and use your credit cards as financial tools rather than liabilities. Here are five smart tips to help you manage your credit card bills efficiently.

1. Create a Monthly Budget and Stick to It One of the most effective ways to manage your credit card bills is to have a clear and realistic monthly budget. A budget helps you allocate your income toward necessities, savings, and discretionary expenses while ensuring you leave enough to pay your credit card balance. Track your spending regularly and categorize expenses to identify where you might be overspending. Apps or spreadsheets can make this process easier, but the key is discipline. Knowing how much you can afford to charge to your credit card each month prevents unnecessary debt and ensures you can pay your bill in full.

2. Always Pay More Than the Minimum Paying only the minimum amount due on your credit card might seem convenient, but it can lead to higher interest charges over time. Interest compounds on the remaining balance, which means you end up paying much more than what you originally owed. Whenever possible, pay off your entire balance each month. If that’s not feasible, aim to pay as much as you can above the minimum requirement. This approach reduces your balance faster and saves you money in the long run. Treat your credit card payment like any other essential monthly expense to prioritize it accordingly.

3. Set Up Payment Reminders or Auto-Pay Late payments not only lead to hefty fees but can also damage your credit score. Avoid this by setting up reminders through your bank’s app or phone calendar to alert you before the due date. Better yet, consider enrolling in auto-pay for at least the minimum payment to ensure you never miss a deadline. This way, even if life gets busy, your credit card bill won’t slip through the cracks. Just remember to keep enough funds in your bank account to cover the payment and avoid overdraft fees.

4. Use Your Credit Card Strategically How you use your credit card plays a huge role in how manageable your bills will be. Avoid impulsive purchases or charging amounts you can’t repay by the end of the billing cycle. Credit cards are best utilized for planned expenses that fit within your budget. Additionally, keep an eye on your credit utilization ratio, which is the percentage of your credit limit that you’re using. Experts recommend keeping this ratio below 30% to maintain a healthy credit score. By staying mindful of your spending habits, you can prevent your bills from spiraling out of control.

5. Review Statements Regularly for Errors It’s easy to overlook errors on your credit card statements, but reviewing them each month is essential. Fraudulent charges, incorrect billing, or unauthorized transactions can lead to inflated bills if not caught early. Take a few minutes to review each transaction on your statement and ensure they align with your receipts and spending records. If you spot any discrepancies, report them to your credit card provider immediately. Staying vigilant not only protects your finances but also helps you understand your spending habits better.

Managing credit card bills efficiently requires a combination of planning, discipline, and attention to detail. By budgeting wisely, paying more than the minimum, setting up payment reminders, using your card strategically, and reviewing your statements regularly, you can take control of your credit card payments and avoid unnecessary financial stress. With these strategies, your credit card can become a powerful tool for managing expenses and building credit, rather than a source of anxiety.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Personagens de jogos e símbolos

A sensação de "ser" um personagem em um jogo ou uma brincadeira talvez seja o mais próximo que eu tenha conseguido chegar do entendimento de um símbolo religioso.

A hóstia consagrada é, segundo a religião, o corpo de Cristo, mas nossa mente moderna só consegue concebê-la como sendo uma representação do corpo de Cristo. Da mesma forma outras culturas e outras religiões têm símbolos parecidos, inclusive nos quais o próprio participante do ritual faz o papel de um deus ou de qualquer coisa parecida.

"Faz o papel" é de novo a interpretação da mente moderna. O sujeito ali é a coisa, mas ele ao mesmo tempo que é também sabe que não é, que continua sendo ele mesmo.

Nos jogos de videogame e brincadeiras infantis em que se encarna um personagem o jogador é o personagem. não se diz, entre os jogadores, que alguém está "encenando", mas que ele é e pronto. nem há outra denominação ou outro verbo. No máximo "encarnando", mas já aí já é vocabulário jornalístico feito para facilitar a compreensão de quem está de fora do jogo.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

IPFS problems: General confusion

Most IPFS open-source projects, libraries and apps (excluding Ethereum stuff) are things that rely heavily on dynamic data and temporary links. The most common projects you'll see when following the IPFS communities are chat rooms and similar things. I've seen dozens of these chat-rooms. There's also a famous IPFS-powered database. How can you do these things with content-addressing is a mistery. Of course they probably rely on IPNS or other external address system.

There's also a bunch of "file-sharing" on IPFS. The kind of thing people use for temporary making a file available for a third-party. There's image sharing on IPFS, pastebins on IPFS and so on. People don't seem to share the preoccupation with broken links here.

@ 16d11430:61640947

Tokenomics offers a powerful framework for mid and premium service businesses, such as car detailing shops and fitness gyms, to differentiate themselves through customer-centric innovations, accountability, and transparency. With mature wallet implementations and adaptable platforms available today, the upfront costs of integrating tokenomics have significantly decreased, making this a practical investment for forward-thinking business owners.

This article explores how business owners can infuse tokenomics into their existing sales and marketing channels, achieve full accountability and transparency, and target premium clientele while reducing costs and increasing customer loyalty.

---

Why Tokenomics for Mid and Premium Services?

Mid and premium businesses are uniquely positioned to benefit from tokenomics due to their emphasis on high-quality services and personalized customer experiences. Tokenomics provides:

Transparency: Clear records of customer rewards, payments, and incentives, building trust.

Differentiation: A tech-forward approach that attracts customers willing to pay a premium for accountability and innovation.

Community Building: Tokens encourage customer loyalty, word-of-mouth referrals, and repeat visits.

Reduced Costs: Traditional marketing and customer acquisition costs can be significantly lowered through organic, token-driven growth.

---

Use Cases for a Car Detailing Shop

1. Tokenized Rewards and Transparency for Premium Packages

Concept: Reward customers with tokens when they purchase mid-tier or premium detailing packages, incentivizing loyalty and upselling.

Implementation:

Use a mature wallet like Superhero.com (or similar) to issue tokens directly to customers.

Customers can track token rewards in their wallets, redeem them for discounts on future services, or gift them to others.

Benefits:

Transparency: Customers see exactly how and why they earned tokens, fostering trust.

Cost Reductions:

Decreased reliance on email promotions or paid advertising.

Tokens replace traditional discount programs, reducing dependency on price cuts.

Example: A $200 premium detailing package rewards customers with 50 tokens (redeemable for $10 off their next visit).

---

1. Eco-Conscious Service Incentives

Concept: Reward customers for choosing sustainable services, such as waterless car washes or biodegradable cleaning products.

Implementation:

Create a tiered token system: more tokens for eco-friendly options.

Use tokens to educate and motivate customers about sustainable practices.

Benefits:

Differentiation: Attract eco-conscious premium customers.

Cost Reductions:

Free advertising from word-of-mouth and social media shares.

Savings from reduced print and digital ad campaigns.

Example: Customers choosing a $250 eco-premium package receive 75 tokens, building a loyal base while showcasing environmental commitment.

---

1. Token-Powered Prepaid Packages

Concept: Offer prepaid tokens for specific services, locking in revenue and encouraging repeat visits.

Implementation:

Sell tokens in bundles (e.g., 1 token = 1 detailing session).

Customers can track usage and balances in their wallets.

Benefits:

Transparency: Prepaid tokens ensure accountability for services delivered.

Cost Reductions:

Reduces dependency on financing or loans for cash flow.

Cuts costs on managing paper-based gift cards or subscriptions.

Example: Sell a 5-service token bundle for $900, offering $100 in savings compared to single purchases.

---

Use Cases for Fitness Gyms

1. Tokenized Memberships with Accountability

Concept: Replace traditional membership fees with tokens that customers use for gym access, classes, or personal training.

Implementation:

Tokens can represent membership credits redeemable for services.

Tokens can be tracked in wallets, ensuring transparency for customers.

Benefits:

Accountability: Customers see exactly where their money goes.

Cost Reductions:

Reduces customer churn, lowering re-engagement campaign costs.

No need for expensive subscription management tools.

Example: A premium gym charges $150/month for 150 tokens, which members redeem for access and exclusive services.

---

1. Gamified Challenges for Premium Customers

Concept: Introduce challenges with token rewards for achieving fitness milestones (e.g., attending 20 classes in a month).

Implementation:

Use mature platforms like Loyalty Wallets to distribute and track tokens.

Tokens can be redeemed for merchandise, premium classes, or exclusive training sessions.

Benefits:

Differentiation: Builds an engaged and motivated premium customer base.

Cost Reductions:

Gamification reduces reliance on paid social media ads to maintain member interest.

Fewer cancellations due to higher engagement levels.

Example: A premium member completing a “30-Day Strength Challenge” earns 100 tokens, redeemable for $20 off their next personal training session.

---

1. Referral Incentives Powered by Tokens

Concept: Reward members who bring friends to the gym with tokens instead of discounts, maintaining service value.

Implementation:

Issue referral tokens via a wallet platform.

Friends who join also earn tokens, kickstarting their engagement.

Benefits:

Cost Reductions:

Eliminates reliance on costly “first month free” campaigns.

Organic referrals reduce CAC by 10-20%.

Transparency: Referral token rewards are easy to track and validate.

Example: A member referring a friend receives 50 tokens (worth $10), while the friend gets 25 tokens (worth $5) upon joining.

---

Cost Reductions Through Existing Channels

1. Reduced Dependency on Ads:

Tokenomics promotes organic growth through referrals, social sharing, and gamification, reducing reliance on paid advertising.

1. Streamlined Customer Engagement:

Existing email and social media campaigns can integrate token rewards to increase effectiveness while reducing frequency and cost.

1. Prepaid Revenue Streams:

Tokenized prepaid packages stabilize cash flow, reducing the need for external financing or discounts.

1. Elimination of Legacy Programs:

Replace costly gift card systems, print loyalty cards, and complex subscription management software with blockchain-based wallets.

---

Accountability and Transparency for Premium Clientele

1. Immutable Records:

Blockchain-based tokens ensure that all transactions, rewards, and redemptions are recorded immutably, building customer trust.

1. Real-Time Tracking:

Customers can track token balances and usage through intuitive wallet apps, ensuring complete visibility.

1. Elimination of Fraud:

Tokens cannot be duplicated or manipulated, reducing fraud risk in loyalty and reward programs.

---

Conclusion

For mid and premium service businesses, tokenomics represents a practical, scalable way to build trust, enhance customer engagement, and reduce costs in traditional sales and marketing channels. By leveraging mature wallet implementations and integrating token rewards into existing operations, business owners can achieve transparency, accountability, and long-term loyalty.

With reduced upfront costs, tokenomics can unlock immediate benefits like improved cash flow, lower customer acquisition costs, and increased lifetime value, making it a compelling strategy for growth in today’s competitive landscape.

@ 4657dfe8:47934b3e

Alby Hub enables creation of subaccounts, decentralizing trust and creating usecases for shared, community nodes.

Simplifying Bitcoin Wallets for Friends and Family

Alby Hub empowers you to take full control of your bitcoin and manage your payments. Through a user-friendly, self-custodial wallet with a one-click lightning node setup, you can effortlessly connect to dozens of applications. The integrated App Store provides access to popular apps like Amethyst, Damus, Stacker News, Podcasting 2.0, and a wide range of other external tools—all directly linked with your Alby Hub wallet. One of the latest and most exciting additions to Alby Hub is the Friends & Family app.

With the Friends & Family app, you can create subaccounts for friends and family, all powered by your Hub. In just a few clicks, you can set up wallets for them, giving them a smooth onboarding experience and making bitcoin accessible even to those new to the ecosystem. Think of it as a custodial wallet but with a personal touch—since you’re the one managing it, there’s a direct relationship and trust.

These subaccount holders can tap into all the channels and liquidity of your Hub without needing to handle any technical setup. Plus, you can preload their wallets with a few sats, creating a welcoming and smooth experience that’s hard to find elsewhere.

And that’s not all. Beyond providing an intuitive wallet, they can get their own lightning address, configurable payment notifications, access to Alby Go (a mobile app for payments on the go), and the Alby Browser Extension for easy web payments.

Let’s have a look how to set it up.

How to provide a wallet to Friends and Family?

1. Open your Hub and find the Friends & Family app in the App Store
2. Enter a name e.g. your friend’s name and click “Create subaccount”
3. Share the Connection Secret with your friend for the different options

Here are two examples how your the new subaccount can be used.

Alby Go mobile App

Alby Go makes it easy to carry bitcoin in your pocket. This lightweight wallet connects directly to an Alby Hub subaccount, so your friends can pay and check transactions on the go.

Here’s how to set it up: 1. Open the Alby Go Mobile App tab in your Hub.

2. Copy the Connection Secret and share it with your friend if you cannot onboard them in person. 3. Your friend downloads Alby Go for Android or iOS and scans the code.

And that’s it—your friend now has a bitcoin wallet in their pocket, ready for seamless transactions anytime, anywhere. 🎉

Get a Lightning Address with an Alby account

An Alby Account offers a variety of useful features that make managing bitcoin payments easy. Among these are a personalized lightning address and email payment notifications—two powerful tools that help your newly onboarded friends stay connected and informed.

To set up an Alby account for someone:

1. Open the Alby Account tab in your Hub.

2. Copy the provided URL and share it with your friend.

3. Your friend simply needs to create their Alby account and afterwards click on the provided URL.

That’s it! The wallet is instantly connected, and they’re ready to receive payments to their new lightning address. 🥳

Onboarding Family & Friends Made Easy In this article, we explored how to create subaccounts for family and friends, connect them with Alby Go, and set up an Alby account to provide a smooth onboarding experience for your loved ones—all achievable in just a few clicks.

Stay tuned as we dive into more exciting use cases for subaccounts in Alby Hub! If you have ideas for improvement,let us know.

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

Through my work as a consumer advocate, both as the deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center and a Fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, I’ve contributed to various model policies that can be enacted at a state-level in the United States to help advance Bitcoin.

Working with state lawmakers, policy organizations, and fellow passionate bitcoiners, these are some of the model policies we offer open-source to anyone who would like to pass something similar in their state. An active list can be found on GitHub.\ \ Smart Cryptocurrency Rules Act\ \ –This model policy was adopted by the American Legislative Exchange Council on July 29, 2022.\ \ Reject CBDCs and Protect Financial Privacy Act\ \ –This model policy was adopted by the American Legislative Exchange Council on August 28, 2023.

–This model policy was SIGNED into law in the state of SOUTH DAKOTA on February 27, 2024 as HB1161.

–This model policy was SIGNED into law in the state of INDIANA on March 11, 2024 as SB180.

–This model policy was SIGNED into law by the state of UTAH on March 13, 2024 as HB164.

–This model policy was SIGNED into law in the state of LOUISIANA on June 19, 2024 as HB488.

–This model policy was SIGNED into law by the state of GEORGIA on July 1, 2024 as HB1053.

–This model policy was SIGNED into law by the NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY overriding a gubernatorial veto on September 9, 2024 as H690.

–This model policy was PASSED by the MISSOURI STATE HOUSE on March 5, 2024 as HB1676.

–This model policy was INTRODUCED into the MISSOURI STATE SENATE on December 1, 2023 as SB826.

–The model policy was INTRODUCED into the IOWA LEGISLATURE on February 7, 2024 as HF2358.

**\ PURPOSE\ \ The purpose of the GitHub page is to provide state and local legislators with a template of consumer-friendly policies on Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and decentralized finance.\ \ As model policies, these serve the purpose of providing general guidelines or goals to achieve in state legislation, and will therefore require various amendments, customizations, and accommodations with existing laws and regulations.\ \ State lawmakers and their staff are encouraged to take parts, or the whole, of these model policies to help usher in consumer-friendly policies on cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance in their jurisdiction.\ \ Members of the public are encouraged to suggest their own edits.\ \ GITHUB MODIFICATIONS AND COMMITS\ \ This GitHub repository will serve as the living model for these model policies.\ \ Edits, modifications, and additions are welcome by all. Doing so helps better crowdsource the most appropriate and beneficial rules on digital assets such as Bitcoin and its crypto-offspring, as well as any industries, projects, or protocols that may support them.\ \ Considering the complex nature of digital assets and decentralized blockchain technology, there are inevitably concerns that are not addressed by these model policies. However, this repository should serve as collection of templates for future action and language, while remaining loyal to the consumer-friendly principles of open and decentralized blockchains and related industries.\ \ Updates can be found on GitHub here: https://github.com/yaeloss/Bitcoin-Model-Policies

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A Causa

o Princípios de Economia Política de Menger é o único livro que enfatiza a CAUSA o tempo todo. os cientistas todos parecem não saber, ou se esquecer sempre, que as coisas têm causa, e que o conhecimento verdadeiro é o conhecimento da causa das coisas.

a causa é uma categoria metafísica muito superior a qualquer correlação ou resultado de teste de hipótese, ela não pode ser descoberta por nenhum artifício econométrico ou reduzida à simples antecedência temporal estatística. a causa dos fenômenos não pode ser provada cientificamente, mas pode ser conhecida.

o livro de Menger conta para o leitor as causas de vários fenômenos econômicos e as interliga de forma que o mundo caótico da economia parece adquirir uma ordem no momento em que você lê. é uma sensação mágica e indescritível.

quando eu te o recomendei, queria é te imbuir com o espírito da busca pela causa das coisas. depois de ler aquilo, você está apto a perceber continuidade causal nos fenômenos mais complexos da economia atual, enxergar as causas entre toda a ação governamental e as suas várias consequências na vida humana. eu faço isso todos os dias e é a melhor sensação do mundo quando o caos das notícias do caderno de Economia do jornal -- que para o próprio jornalista que as escreveu não têm nenhum sentido (tanto é que ele escreve tudo errado) -- se incluem num sistema ordenado de causas e consequências.

provavelmente eu sempre erro em alguns ou vários pontos, mas ainda assim é maravilhoso. ou então é mais maravilhoso ainda quando eu descubro o erro e reinsiro o acerto naquela racionalização bela da ordem do mundo econômico que é a ordem de Deus.

em scrap para T.P.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Scala is such a great language

Scala is amazing. The type system has the perfect balance between flexibility and powerfulness. match statements are great. You can write imperative code that looks very nice and expressive (and I haven't tried writing purely functional things yet). Everything is easy to write and cheap and neovim integration works great.

But Java is not great. And the fact that Scala is a JVM language doesn't help because over the years people have written stuff that depends on Java libraries -- and these Java libraries are not as safe as the Scala libraries, they contain reflection, slowness, runtime errors, all kinds of horrors.

Scala is also very tightly associated with Akka, the actor framework, and Akka is a giant collection of anti-patterns. Untyped stuff, reflection, dependency on JVM, basically a lot of javisms. I just arrived and I don't know anything about the Scala history or ecosystem or community, but I have the impression that Akka has prevent more adoption of Scala from decent people that aren't Java programmers.

But luckily there is a solution -- or two solutions: ScalaJS is a great thing that exists. It transpiles Scala code into JavaScript and it runs on NodeJS or in a browser!

Scala Native is a much better deal, though, it compiles to LLVM and then to binary code and you can have single binaries that run directly without a JVM -- not that the single JARs are that bad though, they are great and everybody has Java so I'll take that anytime over C libraries or NPM-distributed software, but direct executables even better. Scala Native just needs a little more love and some libraries and it will be the greatest thing in a couple of years.

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

I’ll admit that I was wrong about Bitcoin. Perhaps in 2013. Definitely 2017. Probably in 2018-2019. And maybe even today.

Being wrong about Bitcoin is part of finally understanding it. It will test you, make you question everything, and in the words of BTC educator and privacy advocate Matt Odell, “Bitcoin will humble you”.

I’ve had my own stumbles on the way.

In a very public fashion in 2017, after years of using Bitcoin, trying to start a company with it, using it as my primary exchange vehicle between currencies, and generally being annoying about it at parties, I let out the bear.

In an article published in my own literary magazine Devolution Review in September 2017, I had a breaking point. The article was titled “Going Bearish on Bitcoin: Cryptocurrencies are the tulip mania of the 21st century”.

It was later republished in Huffington Post and across dozens of financial and crypto blogs at the time with another, more appropriate title: “Bitcoin Has Become About The Payday, Not Its Potential”.

As I laid out, my newfound bearishness had little to do with the technology itself or the promise of Bitcoin, and more to do with the cynical industry forming around it:

In the beginning, Bitcoin was something of a revolution to me. The digital currency represented everything from my rebellious youth.

It was a decentralized, denationalized, and digital currency operating outside the traditional banking and governmental system. It used tools of cryptography and connected buyers and sellers across national borders at minimal transaction costs.

…

The 21st-century version (of Tulip mania) has welcomed a plethora of slick consultants, hazy schemes dressed up as investor possibilities, and too much wishy-washy language for anything to really make sense to anyone who wants to use a digital currency to make purchases.

While I called out Bitcoin by name at the time, on reflection, I was really talking about the ICO craze, the wishy-washy consultants, and the altcoin ponzis.

What I was articulating — without knowing it — was the frame of NgU, or “numbers go up”. Rather than advocating for Bitcoin because of its uncensorability, proof-of-work, or immutability, the common mentality among newbies and the dollar-obsessed was that Bitcoin mattered because its price was a rocket ship.

And because Bitcoin was gaining in price, affinity tokens and projects that were imperfect forks of Bitcoin took off as well.

The price alone — rather than its qualities — were the reasons why you’d hear Uber drivers, finance bros, or your gym buddy mention Bitcoin. As someone who came to Bitcoin for philosophical reasons, that just sat wrong with me.

Maybe I had too many projects thrown in my face, or maybe I was too frustrated with the UX of Bitcoin apps and sites at the time. No matter what, I’ve since learned something.

I was at least somewhat wrong.

My own journey began in early 2011. One of my favorite radio programs, Free Talk Live, began interviewing guests and having discussions on the potential of Bitcoin. They tied it directly to a libertarian vision of the world: free markets, free people, and free banking. That was me, and I was in. Bitcoin was at about $5 back then (NgU).

I followed every article I could, talked about it with guests on my college radio show, and became a devoted redditor on r/Bitcoin. At that time, at least to my knowledge, there was no possible way to buy Bitcoin where I was living. Very weak.

I was probably wrong. And very wrong for not trying to acquire by mining or otherwise.

The next year, after moving to Florida, Bitcoin was a heavy topic with a friend of mine who shared the same vision (and still does, according to the Celsius bankruptcy documents). We talked about it with passionate leftists at Occupy Tampa in 2012, all the while trying to explain the ills of Keynesian central banking, and figuring out how to use Coinbase.

I began writing more about Bitcoin in 2013, writing a guide on “How to Avoid Bank Fees Using Bitcoin,” discussing its potential legalization in Germany, and interviewing Jeremy Hansen, one of the first political candidates in the U.S. to accept Bitcoin donations.

Even up until that point, I thought Bitcoin was an interesting protocol for sending and receiving money quickly, and converting it into fiat. The global connectedness of it, plus this cypherpunk mentality divorced from government control was both useful and attractive. I thought it was the perfect go-between.

But I was wrong.

When I gave my first public speech on Bitcoin in Vienna, Austria in December 2013, I had grown obsessed with Bitcoin’s adoption on dark net markets like Silk Road.

My theory, at the time, was the number and price were irrelevant. The tech was interesting, and a novel attempt. It was unlike anything before. But what was happening on the dark net markets, which I viewed as the true free market powered by Bitcoin, was even more interesting. I thought these markets would grow exponentially and anonymous commerce via BTC would become the norm.

While the price was irrelevant, it was all about buying and selling goods without permission or license.

Now I understand I was wrong.

Just because Bitcoin was this revolutionary technology that embraced pseudonymity did not mean that all commerce would decentralize as well. It did not mean that anonymous markets were intended to be the most powerful layer in the Bitcoin stack.

What I did not even anticipate is something articulated very well by noted Bitcoin OG Pierre Rochard: Bitcoin as a savings technology.

The ability to maintain long-term savings, practice self-discipline while stacking stats, and embrace a low-time preference was just not something on the mind of the Bitcoiners I knew at the time.

Perhaps I was reading into the hype while outwardly opposing it. Or perhaps I wasn’t humble enough to understand the true value proposition that many of us have learned years later.

In the years that followed, I bought and sold more times than I can count, and I did everything to integrate it into passion projects. I tried to set up a company using Bitcoin while at my university in Prague.

My business model depended on university students being technologically advanced enough to have a mobile wallet, own their keys, and be able to make transactions on a consistent basis. Even though I was surrounded by philosophically aligned people, those who would advance that to actually put Bitcoin into practice were sparse.

This is what led me to proclaim that “Technological Literacy is Doomed” in 2016.

And I was wrong again.

Indeed, since that time, the UX of Bitcoin-only applications, wallets, and supporting tech has vastly improved and onboarded millions more people than anyone thought possible. The entrepreneurship, coding excellence, and vision offered by Bitcoiners of all stripes have renewed a sense in me that this project is something built for us all — friends and enemies alike.

While many of us were likely distracted by flashy and pumpy altcoins over the years (me too, champs), most of us have returned to the Bitcoin stable.

Fast forward to today, there are entire ecosystems of creators, activists, and developers who are wholly reliant on the magic of Bitcoin’s protocol for their life and livelihood. The options are endless. The FUD is still present, but real proof of work stands powerfully against those forces.

In addition, there are now dozens of ways to use Bitcoin privately — still without custodians or intermediaries — that make it one of the most important assets for global humanity, especially in dictatorships.

This is all toward a positive arc of innovation, freedom, and pure independence. Did I see that coming? Absolutely not.

Of course, there are probably other shots you’ve missed on Bitcoin. Price predictions (ouch), the short-term inflation hedge, or the amount of institutional investment. While all of these may be erroneous predictions in the short term, we have to realize that Bitcoin is a long arc. It will outlive all of us on the planet, and it will continue in its present form for the next generation.

Being wrong about the evolution of Bitcoin is no fault, and is indeed part of the learning curve to finally understanding it all.

When your family or friends ask you about Bitcoin after your endless sessions explaining market dynamics, nodes, how mining works, and the genius of cryptographic signatures, try to accept that there is still so much we have to learn about this decentralized digital cash.

There are still some things you’ve gotten wrong about Bitcoin, and plenty more you’ll underestimate or get wrong in the future. That’s what makes it a beautiful journey. It’s a long road, but one that remains worth it.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Based on a recent paper that included collaboration from renowned experts such as Lynn Alden, Steve Lee, and Ren Crypto Fish, we discuss in depth how Bitcoin's consensus is built, the main risks, and the complex dynamics of protocol upgrades.

PT-BR version

Podcast https://www.fountain.fm/episode/wbjD6ntQuvX5u2G5BccC

Presentation https://gamma.app/docs/Analyzing-Bitcoin-Consensus-Risks-in-Protocol-Upgrades-p66axxjwaa37ksn

1. Introduction to Consensus in Bitcoin

Consensus in Bitcoin is the foundation that keeps the network secure and functional, allowing users worldwide to perform transactions in a decentralized manner without the need for intermediaries. Since its launch in 2009, Bitcoin is often described as an "immutable" system designed to resist changes, and it is precisely this resistance that ensures its security and stability.

The central idea behind consensus in Bitcoin is to create a set of acceptance rules for blocks and transactions, ensuring that all network participants agree on the transaction history. This prevents "double-spending," where the same bitcoin could be used in two simultaneous transactions, something that would compromise trust in the network.

Evolution of Consensus in Bitcoin

Over the years, consensus in Bitcoin has undergone several adaptations, and the way participants agree on changes remains a delicate process. Unlike traditional systems, where changes can be imposed from the top down, Bitcoin operates in a decentralized model where any significant change needs the support of various groups of stakeholders, including miners, developers, users, and large node operators.

Moreover, the update process is extremely cautious, as hasty changes can compromise the network's security. As a result, the philosophy of "don't fix what isn't broken" prevails, with improvements happening incrementally and only after broad consensus among those involved. This model can make progress seem slow but ensures that Bitcoin remains faithful to the principles of security and decentralization.

---

2. Technical Components of Consensus

Bitcoin's consensus is supported by a set of technical rules that determine what is considered a valid transaction and a valid block on the network. These technical aspects ensure that all nodes—the computers that participate in the Bitcoin network—agree on the current state of the blockchain. Below are the main technical components that form the basis of the consensus.

Validation of Blocks and Transactions

The validation of blocks and transactions is the central point of consensus in Bitcoin. A block is only considered valid if it meets certain criteria, such as maximum size, transaction structure, and the solving of the "Proof of Work" problem. The proof of work, required for a block to be included in the blockchain, is a computational process that ensures the block contains significant computational effort—protecting the network against manipulation attempts.

Transactions, in turn, need to follow specific input and output rules. Each transaction includes cryptographic signatures that prove the ownership of the bitcoins sent, as well as validation scripts that verify if the transaction conditions are met. This validation system is essential for network nodes to autonomously confirm that each transaction follows the rules.

Chain Selection

Another fundamental technical issue for Bitcoin's consensus is chain selection, which becomes especially important in cases where multiple versions of the blockchain coexist, such as after a network split (fork). To decide which chain is the "true" one and should be followed, the network adopts the criterion of the highest accumulated proof of work. In other words, the chain with the highest number of valid blocks, built with the greatest computational effort, is chosen by the network as the official one.

This criterion avoids permanent splits because it encourages all nodes to follow the same main chain, reinforcing consensus.

Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks

In the consensus process, protocol changes can happen in two ways: through soft forks or hard forks. These variations affect not only the protocol update but also the implications for network users:

• Soft Forks: These are changes that are backward compatible. Only nodes that adopt the new update will follow the new rules, but old nodes will still recognize the blocks produced with these rules as valid. This compatibility makes soft forks a safer option for updates, as it minimizes the risk of network division.

• Hard Forks: These are updates that are not backward compatible, requiring all nodes to update to the new version or risk being separated from the main chain. Hard forks can result in the creation of a new coin, as occurred with the split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in 2017. While hard forks allow for deeper changes, they also bring significant risks of network fragmentation.

These technical components form the base of Bitcoin's security and resilience, allowing the system to remain functional and immutable without losing the necessary flexibility to evolve over time.

---

3. Stakeholders in Bitcoin's Consensus

Consensus in Bitcoin is not decided centrally. On the contrary, it depends on the interaction between different groups of stakeholders, each with their motivations, interests, and levels of influence. These groups play fundamental roles in how changes are implemented or rejected on the network. Below, we explore the six main stakeholders in Bitcoin's consensus.

1. Economic Nodes

Economic nodes, usually operated by exchanges, custody providers, and large companies that accept Bitcoin, exert significant influence over consensus. Because they handle large volumes of transactions and act as a connection point between the Bitcoin ecosystem and the traditional financial system, these nodes have the power to validate or reject blocks and to define which version of the software to follow in case of a fork.

Their influence is proportional to the volume of transactions they handle, and they can directly affect which chain will be seen as the main one. Their incentive is to maintain the network's stability and security to preserve its functionality and meet regulatory requirements.

2. Investors

Investors, including large institutional funds and individual Bitcoin holders, influence consensus indirectly through their impact on the asset's price. Their buying and selling actions can affect Bitcoin's value, which in turn influences the motivation of miners and other stakeholders to continue investing in the network's security and development.

Some institutional investors have agreements with custodians that may limit their ability to act in network split situations. Thus, the impact of each investor on consensus can vary based on their ownership structure and how quickly they can react to a network change.

3. Media Influencers

Media influencers, including journalists, analysts, and popular personalities on social media, have a powerful role in shaping public opinion about Bitcoin and possible updates. These influencers can help educate the public, promote debates, and bring transparency to the consensus process.

On the other hand, the impact of influencers can be double-edged: while they can clarify complex topics, they can also distort perceptions by amplifying or minimizing change proposals. This makes them a force both of support and resistance to consensus.

4. Miners

Miners are responsible for validating transactions and including blocks in the blockchain. Through computational power (hashrate), they also exert significant influence over consensus decisions. In update processes, miners often signal their support for a proposal, indicating that the new version is safe to use. However, this signaling is not always definitive, and miners can change their position if they deem it necessary.

Their incentive is to maximize returns from block rewards and transaction fees, as well as to maintain the value of investments in their specialized equipment, which are only profitable if the network remains stable.

5. Protocol Developers

Protocol developers, often called "Core Developers," are responsible for writing and maintaining Bitcoin's code. Although they do not have direct power over consensus, they possess an informal veto power since they decide which changes are included in the main client (Bitcoin Core). This group also serves as an important source of technical knowledge, helping guide decisions and inform other stakeholders.

Their incentive lies in the continuous improvement of the network, ensuring security and decentralization. Many developers are funded by grants and sponsorships, but their motivations generally include a strong ideological commitment to Bitcoin's principles.

6. Users and Application Developers

This group includes people who use Bitcoin in their daily transactions and developers who build solutions based on the network, such as wallets, exchanges, and payment platforms. Although their power in consensus is less than that of miners or economic nodes, they play an important role because they are responsible for popularizing Bitcoin's use and expanding the ecosystem.

If application developers decide not to adopt an update, this can affect compatibility and widespread acceptance. Thus, they indirectly influence consensus by deciding which version of the protocol to follow in their applications.

These stakeholders are vital to the consensus process, and each group exerts influence according to their involvement, incentives, and ability to act in situations of change. Understanding the role of each makes it clearer how consensus is formed and why it is so difficult to make significant changes to Bitcoin.

---

4. Mechanisms for Activating Updates in Bitcoin

For Bitcoin to evolve without compromising security and consensus, different mechanisms for activating updates have been developed over the years. These mechanisms help coordinate changes among network nodes to minimize the risk of fragmentation and ensure that updates are implemented in an orderly manner. Here, we explore some of the main methods used in Bitcoin, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as historical examples of significant updates.

Flag Day

The Flag Day mechanism is one of the simplest forms of activating changes. In it, a specific date or block is determined as the activation moment, and all nodes must be updated by that point. This method does not involve prior signaling; participants simply need to update to the new software version by the established day or block.

• Advantages: Simplicity and predictability are the main benefits of Flag Day, as everyone knows the exact activation date.

• Disadvantages: Inflexibility can be a problem because there is no way to adjust the schedule if a significant part of the network has not updated. This can result in network splits if a significant number of nodes are not ready for the update.

An example of Flag Day was the Pay to Script Hash (P2SH) update in 2012, which required all nodes to adopt the change to avoid compatibility issues.

BIP34 and BIP9

BIP34 introduced a more dynamic process, in which miners increase the version number in block headers to signal the update. When a predetermined percentage of the last blocks is mined with this new version, the update is automatically activated. This model later evolved with BIP9, which allowed multiple updates to be signaled simultaneously through "version bits," each corresponding to a specific change.

• Advantages: Allows the network to activate updates gradually, giving more time for participants to adapt.

• Disadvantages: These methods rely heavily on miner support, which means that if a sufficient number of miners do not signal the update, it can be delayed or not implemented.

BIP9 was used in the activation of SegWit (BIP141) but faced challenges because some miners did not signal their intent to activate, leading to the development of new mechanisms.

User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) and User Resisted Soft Forks (URSF)

To increase the decision-making power of ordinary users, the concept of User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) was introduced, allowing node operators, not just miners, to determine consensus for a change. In this model, nodes set a date to start rejecting blocks that are not in compliance with the new update, forcing miners to adapt or risk having their blocks rejected by the network.

URSF, in turn, is a model where nodes reject blocks that attempt to adopt a specific update, functioning as resistance against proposed changes.

• Advantages: UASF returns decision-making power to node operators, ensuring that changes do not depend solely on miners.

• Disadvantages: Both UASF and URSF can generate network splits, especially in cases of strong opposition among different stakeholders.

An example of UASF was the activation of SegWit in 2017, where users supported activation independently of miner signaling, which ended up forcing its adoption.

BIP8 (LOT=True)

BIP8 is an evolution of BIP9, designed to prevent miners from indefinitely blocking a change desired by the majority of users and developers. BIP8 allows setting a parameter called "lockinontimeout" (LOT) as true, which means that if the update has not been fully signaled by a certain point, it is automatically activated.

• Advantages: Ensures that changes with broad support among users are not blocked by miners who wish to maintain the status quo.

• Disadvantages: Can lead to network splits if miners or other important stakeholders do not support the update.

Although BIP8 with LOT=True has not yet been used in Bitcoin, it is a proposal that can be applied in future updates if necessary.

These activation mechanisms have been essential for Bitcoin's development, allowing updates that keep the network secure and functional. Each method brings its own advantages and challenges, but all share the goal of preserving consensus and network cohesion.

---

5. Risks and Considerations in Consensus Updates

Consensus updates in Bitcoin are complex processes that involve not only technical aspects but also political, economic, and social considerations. Due to the network's decentralized nature, each change brings with it a set of risks that need to be carefully assessed. Below, we explore some of the main challenges and future scenarios, as well as the possible impacts on stakeholders.

Network Fragility with Alternative Implementations

One of the main risks associated with consensus updates is the possibility of network fragmentation when there are alternative software implementations. If an update is implemented by a significant group of nodes but rejected by others, a network split (fork) can occur. This creates two competing chains, each with a different version of the transaction history, leading to unpredictable consequences for users and investors.

Such fragmentation weakens Bitcoin because, by dividing hashing power (computing) and coin value, it reduces network security and investor confidence. A notable example of this risk was the fork that gave rise to Bitcoin Cash in 2017 when disagreements over block size resulted in a new chain and a new asset.

Chain Splits and Impact on Stakeholders

Chain splits are a significant risk in update processes, especially in hard forks. During a hard fork, the network is split into two separate chains, each with its own set of rules. This results in the creation of a new coin and leaves users with duplicated assets on both chains. While this may seem advantageous, in the long run, these splits weaken the network and create uncertainties for investors.

Each group of stakeholders reacts differently to a chain split:

• Institutional Investors and ETFs: Face regulatory and compliance challenges because many of these assets are managed under strict regulations. The creation of a new coin requires decisions to be made quickly to avoid potential losses, which may be hampered by regulatory constraints.

• Miners: May be incentivized to shift their computing power to the chain that offers higher profitability, which can weaken one of the networks.

• Economic Nodes: Such as major exchanges and custody providers, have to quickly choose which chain to support, influencing the perceived value of each network.

Such divisions can generate uncertainties and loss of value, especially for institutional investors and those who use Bitcoin as a store of value.

Regulatory Impacts and Institutional Investors

With the growing presence of institutional investors in Bitcoin, consensus changes face new compliance challenges. Bitcoin ETFs, for example, are required to follow strict rules about which assets they can include and how chain split events should be handled. The creation of a new asset or migration to a new chain can complicate these processes, creating pressure for large financial players to quickly choose a chain, affecting the stability of consensus.

Moreover, decisions regarding forks can influence the Bitcoin futures and derivatives market, affecting perception and adoption by new investors. Therefore, the need to avoid splits and maintain cohesion is crucial to attract and preserve the confidence of these investors.

Security Considerations in Soft Forks and Hard Forks

While soft forks are generally preferred in Bitcoin for their backward compatibility, they are not without risks. Soft forks can create different classes of nodes on the network (updated and non-updated), which increases operational complexity and can ultimately weaken consensus cohesion. In a network scenario with fragmentation of node classes, Bitcoin's security can be affected, as some nodes may lose part of the visibility over updated transactions or rules.

In hard forks, the security risk is even more evident because all nodes need to adopt the new update to avoid network division. Experience shows that abrupt changes can create temporary vulnerabilities, in which malicious agents try to exploit the transition to attack the network.

Bounty Claim Risks and Attack Scenarios

Another risk in consensus updates are so-called "bounty claims"—accumulated rewards that can be obtained if an attacker manages to split or deceive a part of the network. In a conflict scenario, a group of miners or nodes could be incentivized to support a new update or create an alternative version of the software to benefit from these rewards.

These risks require stakeholders to carefully assess each update and the potential vulnerabilities it may introduce. The possibility of "bounty claims" adds a layer of complexity to consensus because each interest group may see a financial opportunity in a change that, in the long term, may harm network stability.

The risks discussed above show the complexity of consensus in Bitcoin and the importance of approaching it gradually and deliberately. Updates need to consider not only technical aspects but also economic and social implications, in order to preserve Bitcoin's integrity and maintain trust among stakeholders.

---

6. Recommendations for the Consensus Process in Bitcoin

To ensure that protocol changes in Bitcoin are implemented safely and with broad support, it is essential that all stakeholders adopt a careful and coordinated approach. Here are strategic recommendations for evaluating, supporting, or rejecting consensus updates, considering the risks and challenges discussed earlier, along with best practices for successful implementation.

1. Careful Evaluation of Proposal Maturity

Stakeholders should rigorously assess the maturity level of a proposal before supporting its implementation. Updates that are still experimental or lack a robust technical foundation can expose the network to unnecessary risks. Ideally, change proposals should go through an extensive testing phase, have security audits, and receive review and feedback from various developers and experts.

2. Extensive Testing in Secure and Compatible Networks

Before an update is activated on the mainnet, it is essential to test it on networks like testnet and signet, and whenever possible, on other compatible networks that offer a safe and controlled environment to identify potential issues. Testing on networks like Litecoin was fundamental for the safe launch of innovations like SegWit and the Lightning Network, allowing functionalities to be validated on a lower-impact network before being implemented on Bitcoin.

The Liquid Network, developed by Blockstream, also plays an important role as an experimental network for new proposals, such as OP_CAT. By adopting these testing environments, stakeholders can mitigate risks and ensure that the update is reliable and secure before being adopted by the main network.

3. Importance of Stakeholder Engagement

The success of a consensus update strongly depends on the active participation of all stakeholders. This includes economic nodes, miners, protocol developers, investors, and end users. Lack of participation can lead to inadequate decisions or even future network splits, which would compromise Bitcoin's security and stability.

4. Key Questions for Evaluating Consensus Proposals

To assist in decision-making, each group of stakeholders should consider some key questions before supporting a consensus change:

• Does the proposal offer tangible benefits for Bitcoin's security, scalability, or usability?
• Does it maintain backward compatibility or introduce the risk of network split?
• Are the implementation requirements clear and feasible for each group involved?
• Are there clear and aligned incentives for all stakeholder groups to accept the change?

5. Coordination and Timing in Implementations

Timing is crucial. Updates with short activation windows can force a split because not all nodes and miners can update simultaneously. Changes should be planned with ample deadlines to allow all stakeholders to adjust their systems, avoiding surprises that could lead to fragmentation.

Mechanisms like soft forks are generally preferable to hard forks because they allow a smoother transition. Opting for backward-compatible updates when possible facilitates the process and ensures that nodes and miners can adapt without pressure.

6. Continuous Monitoring and Re-evaluation

After an update, it's essential to monitor the network to identify problems or side effects. This continuous process helps ensure cohesion and trust among all participants, keeping Bitcoin as a secure and robust network.

These recommendations, including the use of secure networks for extensive testing, promote a collaborative and secure environment for Bitcoin's consensus process. By adopting a deliberate and strategic approach, stakeholders can preserve Bitcoin's value as a decentralized and censorship-resistant network.

---

7. Conclusion

Consensus in Bitcoin is more than a set of rules; it's the foundation that sustains the network as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system. Unlike centralized systems, where decisions can be made quickly, Bitcoin requires a much more deliberate and cooperative approach, where the interests of miners, economic nodes, developers, investors, and users must be considered and harmonized. This governance model may seem slow, but it is fundamental to preserving the resilience and trust that make Bitcoin a global store of value and censorship-resistant.

Consensus updates in Bitcoin must balance the need for innovation with the preservation of the network's core principles. The development process of a proposal needs to be detailed and rigorous, going through several testing stages, such as in testnet, signet, and compatible networks like Litecoin and Liquid Network. These networks offer safe environments for proposals to be analyzed and improved before being launched on the main network.

Each proposed change must be carefully evaluated regarding its maturity, impact, backward compatibility, and support among stakeholders. The recommended key questions and appropriate timing are critical to ensure that an update is adopted without compromising network cohesion. It's also essential that the implementation process is continuously monitored and re-evaluated, allowing adjustments as necessary and minimizing the risk of instability.

By following these guidelines, Bitcoin's stakeholders can ensure that the network continues to evolve safely and robustly, maintaining user trust and further solidifying its role as one of the most resilient and innovative digital assets in the world. Ultimately, consensus in Bitcoin is not just a technical issue but a reflection of its community and the values it represents: security, decentralization, and resilience.

---

8. Links

Whitepaper: https://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap

Youtube (pt-br): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARycAibl9o&list=PL-qnhF0qlSPkfhorqsREuIu4UTbF0h4zb

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

In a small, quiet town nestled between rolling hills, there lived a boy named Ravi. Ravi was resourceful, hardworking, and had a knack for finding ways to support his family. His mother, a widow who worked tirelessly as a seamstress, inspired Ravi to pitch in wherever he could. His latest venture was ironing clothes for neighbors.

With his trusty old iron and a rickety wooden table, Ravi turned a small corner of their modest home into a makeshift laundry service. By day, he attended school and played with his friends, but in the evenings, he transformed into the “Iron Boy,” smoothing out wrinkles and earning a few precious coins.

One night, orders piled up after a local wedding had left everyone with wrinkled formalwear. Determined to finish, Ravi worked well past his usual bedtime. The warm glow of the lamp cast long shadows across the room as he focused on the rhythmic hiss of steam escaping the iron.

Just as the clock struck midnight, a soft clop-clop echoed from outside. Ravi froze, the iron hovering mid-air. The sound grew louder until it stopped right outside his window.

A deep, resonant voice broke the silence. “Didn’t your mother tell you not to be ironing clothes late at night?”

Ravi’s heart jumped into his throat. He turned slowly to the window, and his eyes widened. Standing there, framed by the moonlight, was a horse—a magnificent creature with a shimmering coat and a mane that seemed to ripple like liquid silver. Its dark eyes sparkled with an otherworldly light, and its lips moved as it spoke.

“W-who are you?” Ravi stammered, clutching the iron like a shield.

The horse tilted its head. “Names are not important. But you should know that ironing past midnight stirs things best left undisturbed.”

“Things? What things?” Ravi asked, his curiosity momentarily overriding his fear.

The horse snorted softly, a sound that almost resembled a chuckle. “Spirits. Shadows. Call them what you will. They grow restless in the heat of the iron at night. You don’t want to invite them in.”

Ravi glanced at the clothes piled on the table, then back at the horse. “But I need to finish these. People are counting on me.”

The horse’s eyes softened, and it stepped closer to the window. “Your dedication is admirable, but heed my warning. For tonight, let it be. Finish in the morning.”

Before Ravi could reply, the horse reared slightly, its silver mane glinting in the moonlight. With a final, cryptic look, it trotted off into the darkness, leaving Ravi staring after it in stunned silence.

The next morning, Ravi woke to find his mother standing at the table, finishing the last of the ironing. “You were so tired, I thought I’d help,” she said with a smile.

Ravi hesitated, then decided not to mention the midnight visitor. But from that day on, he made sure to finish his ironing before nightfall.

Though he never saw the horse again, he sometimes heard the faint clop-clop of hooves in the distance, as if reminding him of that strange, magical night. And in his heart, he carried the lesson that some tasks are best left for the light of day.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Veterano não é dono de bixete

"VETERANO NÃO É DONO DE BIXETE". A frase em letras garrafais chama a atenção dos transeuntes neófitos. Paira sobre um cartaz amarelo que lista várias reclamações contra os "trotes machistas", que, na opinião do responsável pelo cartaz, "não é brincadeira, é opressão".

Eis aí um bizarro exemplo de como são as coisas: primeiro todos os universitários aprovam a idéia do trote, apoiam sua realização e até mesmo desejam sofrer o trote -- com a condição de o poderem aplicar eles mesmos depois --, louvam as maravilhas do mundo universitário, onde a suprema sabedoria se esconde atrás de rituais iniciáticos fora do alcance da imaginação do homem comum e rude, do pobre e do filhinho-de-papai das faculdades privadas; em suma: fomentam os mais baixos, os mais animalescos instintos, a crueldade primordial, destroem em si mesmos e nos colegas quaisquer valores civilizatórios que tivessem sobrado ali, ficando todos indistingüíveis de macacos agressivos e tarados.

Depois vêm aí com um cartaz protestar contra os assédios -- que sem dúvida acontecem em larguíssima escala -- sofridos pelas calouras de 17 anos e que, sendo também novatas no mundo universitário, ainda conservam um pouco de discernimento e pudor.

A incompreensão do fenômeno, porém, é tão grande, que os trotes não são identificados como um problema mental, uma doença que deve ser tratada e eliminada, mas como um sintoma da opressão machista dos homens às mulheres, um produto desta civilização paternalista que, desde que Deus é chamado "o Pai" e não "a Mãe", corrompe a benéfica, pura e angélica natureza do homem primitivo e o torna esta tão torpe criatura.

Na opinião dos autores desse cartaz é preciso, pois, continuar a destruir o que resta da cultura ocidental, e então esperar que haja trotes menos opressores.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

neuron.vim

I started using this neuron thing to create an update this same zettelkasten, but the existing vim plugin had too many problems, so I forked it and ended up changing almost everything.

Since the upstream repository was somewhat abandoned, most users and people who were trying to contribute upstream migrate to my fork too.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/neuron.vim

@ dff95033:862fbf40

Você sabia que o Bitcoin foi uma das melhores escolhas de investimento em 2024, superando até mesmo commodities tradicionais como ouro, soja e gás natural?

Chamado por alguns de “Dinheiro Mágico da Internet”, o Bitcoin provou ser mais do que isso, com um crescimento exponencial ao longo dos anos, destacando-se especialmente em 2024

📊 Confira os números impressionantes:

| Commodity | Ganho(%) | | --- | --- | | 🥇Cacau | 200% | | 🥈Bitcoin | 145% | | 🥉Suco de Laranja | 50% | | Café Arábica | 40% | | Gás Natural | 30% | | Ouro | 20% | | Carne Suína | 10% | | Paládio | 5% | | Soja | 0% |

Bitcoin deixou a concorrência para trás em 2024.

## 🔍 O que impulsionou o Bitcoin em 2024?

Se o cacau liderou com 200% graças a problemas de oferta global, o Bitcoin brilhou por outros motivos:

• Demanda Crescente: Cada vez mais pessoas buscaram o Bitcoin como reserva de valor.
• Adoção Institucional: Um aumento significativo de 30% na adoção por grandes instituições, de acordo com dados da Glassnode.
• Busca por Segurança: O Bitcoin continuou sendo o principal ativo digital descentralizado, atraindo investidores de diferentes perfis.
• Halving: Em abril de 2024, ocorreu o "halving" do Bitcoin, um evento onde a recompensa que os mineradores recebem por adicionar transações ao blockchain é reduzida pela metade, de 6,25 para 3,125 Bitcoins por bloco. Isso diminui a oferta de novos Bitcoins, tornando-os mais raros e, por consequência, aumentando seu valor.

Esses fatores consolidaram o Bitcoin como o segundo ativo mais rentável do ano, com 145% de valorização.

💡 Por que investir em Bitcoin agora?

1️⃣ Potencial de Crescimento: Historicamente, o Bitcoin mostra ciclos de valorização exponencial. Em 10 anos, um investimento inicial de $ 100 em Bitcoin poderia valer hoje $ 26.931,1, segundo dados do CoinMarketCap.\ 2️⃣ Diversificação: O Bitcoin frequentemente se comporta de maneira independente em relação a ativos tradicionais, oferecendo uma oportunidade para diversificação de carteira, com correlações de preço às vezes negativas com ações e commodities.\ 3️⃣ Facilidade de Acesso: Com a Stackfy, você já pode ter os seus bitcoins com apenas R$ 25, de forma simples, rápida e segura!

---

⚠️ Atenção: Investir em criptomoedas envolve riscos devido à alta volatilidade do mercado. Sempre faça sua própria pesquisa e considere suas tolerâncias de risco antes de investir.

---

📈 Não perca tempo!

O Bitcoin está mostrando que o futuro dos investimentos está nas mãos de quem acredita em inovação. Prepare-se para 2025 e além! 🌟

➡️ Ação: Aproveite essa oportunidade única e faça parte da revolução financeira. Explore plataformas confiáveis como e comece sua jornada no Bitcoin hoje! 🚀

---

Referências:

1. BLOOMBERG. Cocoa caps 2024 as biggest commodity winner. Acesso em: 21 dez. 2024.

2. MARKETWATCH. Bitcoin valuation trends. Acesso em: 21 dez. 2024.

3. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Cocoa surges past $12,000 on supply concerns. Acesso em: 21 dez. 2024.

4. GLASSNODE. Fasanara Digital + Glassnode Report: Institutional perspectives on digital assets. Acesso em: 21 dez. 2024.

5. COINMARKETCAP. Bitcoin (BTC) preço, gráfico, capitalização de mercado. Acesso em: 21 dez. 2024.

6. COINGECKO. Bitcoin versus Traditional Assets: Price Returns. Acesso em: 21 dez. 2024.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

The future of physical money is at stake, and the discussion about DREX, the new digital currency planned by the Central Bank of Brazil, is gaining momentum. In a candid and intense conversation, Federal Deputy Julia Zanatta (PL/SC) discussed the challenges and risks of this digital transition, also addressing her Bill No. 3,341/2024, which aims to prevent the extinction of physical currency. This bill emerges as a direct response to legislative initiatives seeking to replace physical money with digital alternatives, limiting citizens' options and potentially compromising individual freedom. Let's delve into the main points of this conversation.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/i5YGJ9Ors3PkqAIMvNQ0

(PT-BR version here)

What is a CBDC?

Before discussing the specifics of DREX, it’s important to understand what a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is. CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks, similar to a digital version of physical money. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which operate in a decentralized manner, CBDCs are centralized and regulated by the government. In other words, they are digital currencies created and controlled by the Central Bank, intended to replace physical currency.

A prominent feature of CBDCs is their programmability. This means that the government can theoretically set rules about how, where, and for what this currency can be used. This aspect enables a level of control over citizens' finances that is impossible with physical money. By programming the currency, the government could limit transactions by setting geographical or usage restrictions. In practice, money within a CBDC could be restricted to specific spending or authorized for use in a defined geographical area.

In countries like China, where citizen actions and attitudes are also monitored, a person considered to have a "low score" due to a moral or ideological violation may have their transactions limited to essential purchases, restricting their digital currency use to non-essential activities. This financial control is strengthened because, unlike physical money, digital currency cannot be exchanged anonymously.

Practical Example: The Case of DREX During the Pandemic

To illustrate how DREX could be used, an example was given by Eric Altafim, director of Banco Itaú. He suggested that, if DREX had existed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government could have restricted the currency’s use to a 5-kilometer radius around a person’s residence, limiting their economic mobility. Another proposed use by the executive related to the Bolsa Família welfare program: the government could set up programming that only allows this benefit to be used exclusively for food purchases. Although these examples are presented as control measures for safety or organization, they demonstrate how much a CBDC could restrict citizens' freedom of choice.

To illustrate the potential for state control through a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), such as DREX, it is helpful to look at the example of China. In China, the implementation of a CBDC coincides with the country’s Social Credit System, a governmental surveillance tool that assesses citizens' and companies' behavior. Together, these technologies allow the Chinese government to monitor, reward, and, above all, punish behavior deemed inappropriate or threatening to the government.

How Does China's Social Credit System Work?

Implemented in 2014, China's Social Credit System assigns every citizen and company a "score" based on various factors, including financial behavior, criminal record, social interactions, and even online activities. This score determines the benefits or penalties each individual receives and can affect everything from public transport access to obtaining loans and enrolling in elite schools for their children. Citizens with low scores may face various sanctions, including travel restrictions, fines, and difficulty in securing loans.

With the adoption of the CBDC — or “digital yuan” — the Chinese government now has a new tool to closely monitor citizens' financial transactions, facilitating the application of Social Credit System penalties. China’s CBDC is a programmable digital currency, which means that the government can restrict how, when, and where the money can be spent. Through this level of control, digital currency becomes a powerful mechanism for influencing citizens' behavior.

Imagine, for instance, a citizen who repeatedly posts critical remarks about the government on social media or participates in protests. If the Social Credit System assigns this citizen a low score, the Chinese government could, through the CBDC, restrict their money usage in certain areas or sectors. For example, they could be prevented from buying tickets to travel to other regions, prohibited from purchasing certain consumer goods, or even restricted to making transactions only at stores near their home.

Another example of how the government can use the CBDC to enforce the Social Credit System is by monitoring purchases of products such as alcohol or luxury items. If a citizen uses the CBDC to spend more than the government deems reasonable on such products, this could negatively impact their social score, resulting in additional penalties such as future purchase restrictions or a lowered rating that impacts their personal and professional lives.

In China, this kind of control has already been demonstrated in several cases. Citizens added to Social Credit System “blacklists” have seen their spending and investment capacity severely limited. The combination of digital currency and social scores thus creates a sophisticated and invasive surveillance system, through which the Chinese government controls important aspects of citizens’ financial lives and individual freedoms.

Deputy Julia Zanatta views these examples with great concern. She argues that if the state has full control over digital money, citizens will be exposed to a level of economic control and surveillance never seen before. In a democracy, this control poses a risk, but in an authoritarian regime, it could be used as a powerful tool of repression.

DREX and Bill No. 3,341/2024

Julia Zanatta became aware of a bill by a Workers' Party (PT) deputy (Bill 4068/2020 by Deputy Reginaldo Lopes - PT/MG) that proposes the extinction of physical money within five years, aiming for a complete transition to DREX, the digital currency developed by the Central Bank of Brazil. Concerned about the impact of this measure, Julia drafted her bill, PL No. 3,341/2024, which prohibits the elimination of physical money, ensuring citizens the right to choose physical currency.

“The more I read about DREX, the less I want its implementation,” says the deputy. DREX is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), similar to other state digital currencies worldwide, but which, according to Julia, carries extreme control risks. She points out that with DREX, the State could closely monitor each citizen’s transactions, eliminating anonymity and potentially restricting freedom of choice. This control would lie in the hands of the Central Bank, which could, in a crisis or government change, “freeze balances or even delete funds directly from user accounts.”

Risks and Individual Freedom

Julia raises concerns about potential abuses of power that complete digitalization could allow. In a democracy, state control over personal finances raises serious questions, and EddieOz warns of an even more problematic future. “Today we are in a democracy, but tomorrow, with a government transition, we don't know if this kind of power will be used properly or abused,” he states. In other words, DREX gives the State the ability to restrict or condition the use of money, opening the door to unprecedented financial surveillance.

EddieOz cites Nigeria as an example, where a CBDC was implemented, and the government imposed severe restrictions on the use of physical money to encourage the use of digital currency, leading to protests and clashes in the country. In practice, the poorest and unbanked — those without regular access to banking services — were harshly affected, as without physical money, many cannot conduct basic transactions. Julia highlights that in Brazil, this situation would be even more severe, given the large number of unbanked individuals and the extent of rural areas where access to technology is limited.

The Relationship Between DREX and Pix

The digital transition has already begun with Pix, which revolutionized instant transfers and payments in Brazil. However, Julia points out that Pix, though popular, is a citizen’s choice, while DREX tends to eliminate that choice. The deputy expresses concern about new rules suggested for Pix, such as daily transaction limits of a thousand reais, justified as anti-fraud measures but which, in her view, represent additional control and a profit opportunity for banks. “How many more rules will banks create to profit from us?” asks Julia, noting that DREX could further enhance control over personal finances.

International Precedents and Resistance to CBDC

The deputy also cites examples from other countries resisting the idea of a centralized digital currency. In the United States, states like New Hampshire have passed laws to prevent the advance of CBDCs, and leaders such as Donald Trump have opposed creating a national digital currency. Trump, addressing the topic, uses a justification similar to Julia’s: in a digitalized system, “with one click, your money could disappear.” She agrees with the warning, emphasizing the control risk that a CBDC represents, especially for countries with disadvantaged populations.

Besides the United States, Canada, Colombia, and Australia have also suspended studies on digital currencies, citing the need for further discussions on population impacts. However, in Brazil, the debate on DREX is still limited, with few parliamentarians and political leaders openly discussing the topic. According to Julia, only she and one or two deputies are truly trying to bring this discussion to the Chamber, making DREX’s advance even more concerning.

Bill No. 3,341/2024 and Popular Pressure

For Julia, her bill is a first step. Although she acknowledges that ideally, it would prevent DREX's implementation entirely, PL 3341/2024 is a measure to ensure citizens' choice to use physical money, preserving a form of individual freedom. “If the future means control, I prefer to live in the past,” Julia asserts, reinforcing that the fight for freedom is at the heart of her bill.

However, the deputy emphasizes that none of this will be possible without popular mobilization. According to her, popular pressure is crucial for other deputies to take notice and support PL 3341. “I am only one deputy, and we need the public’s support to raise the project’s visibility,” she explains, encouraging the public to press other parliamentarians and ask them to “pay attention to PL 3341 and the project that prohibits the end of physical money.” The deputy believes that with a strong awareness and pressure movement, it is possible to advance the debate and ensure Brazilians’ financial freedom.

What’s at Stake?

Julia Zanatta leaves no doubt: DREX represents a profound shift in how money will be used and controlled in Brazil. More than a simple modernization of the financial system, the Central Bank’s CBDC sets precedents for an unprecedented level of citizen surveillance and control in the country. For the deputy, this transition needs to be debated broadly and transparently, and it’s up to the Brazilian people to defend their rights and demand that the National Congress discuss these changes responsibly.

The deputy also emphasizes that, regardless of political or partisan views, this issue affects all Brazilians. “This agenda is something that will affect everyone. We need to be united to ensure people understand the gravity of what could happen.” Julia believes that by sharing information and generating open debate, it is possible to prevent Brazil from following the path of countries that have already implemented a digital currency in an authoritarian way.

A Call to Action

The future of physical money in Brazil is at risk. For those who share Deputy Julia Zanatta’s concerns, the time to act is now. Mobilize, get informed, and press your representatives. PL 3341/2024 is an opportunity to ensure that Brazilian citizens have a choice in how to use their money, without excessive state interference or surveillance.

In the end, as the deputy puts it, the central issue is freedom. “My fear is that this project will pass, and people won’t even understand what is happening.” Therefore, may every citizen at least have the chance to understand what’s at stake and make their voice heard in defense of a Brazil where individual freedom and privacy are respected values.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Que vença o melhor

Nos esportes e jogos em geral, existe uma constante preocupação em balancear os incentivos e atributos do jogo, as regras do esporte em si e as regras das competições para que o melhor vença, ou, em outras palavras, para que sejam minimizados os outros fatores exceto a habilidade mais pura quanto possível no jogo em questão.

O mundo fora dos jogos, porém, nem sempre pode ter suas regras mudadas por um ente que as controla e está imbuído da vontade e dos meios para escolher as melhores regras possíveis para a obtenção dos resultados acima. Aliás, é muitas vezes essa possibilidade é até impensável. Mesmo quando ela é pensável e levada em conta os fatores que operam no mundo real não são facilmente identificáveis, eles são muitos, e mudam o tempo todo.

Mais do que isso, ao contrário de um jogo em que o objetivo é praticamente o mesmo para todo mundo, os objetivos de cada agente no mundo real são diferentes e incontáveis, e as "competições" que cada um está disputando são diferentes e muitas, cada minúsculo ato de suas vidas compreendendo várias delas simultaneamente.

Da mesma forma, é impossível conceber até mesmo o conceito de "melhor" para que se deseje que ele vença.

Mesmo assim é comum encontrarmos em várias situações gente que parte do princípio de que se Fulano está num certo lugar (por exemplo, um emprego muito bom) e Beltrano não isso se deve ao fato de Fulano ter sido melhor que Beltrano.

Está aí uma crítica à idéia da meritocracia (eu tinha me esquecido que essa palavra existia).

@ a10260a2:caa23e3e

A zero-dependency, zero-framework QR code web component for Bitcoin on-chain, Lightning, and unified BIP-21 payments.

Just discovered this tool by nostr:npub18agram6s6kulwwhc638d8q8y5vysutrrvvdll2wdjxd75wp4dfjqshytrf and found it to be very useful. Also, did I mention easy-to-use?

You can find the GitHub here and a demo I made (complete with a function to check for payment) on the Bullish Prototype. 👨‍💻

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/737255

@ 2fb77d26:c47a6ee1

****Der Staat geriert sich als Bewahrer von Demokratie und Menschenrechten, als singuläres Modell zur Aufrechterhaltung gesellschaftlicher Ordnung. Dabei haben die Strukturen supranationaler »Global Governance« das Konzept Nationalstaat längst obsolet gemacht. Und auch ein Blick auf das Handeln des Machtapparats Staat lässt begründete Zweifel an dessen öffentlicher Darstellung aufkommen – denn das Kerngeschäft eines jeden Staates besteht aus Unterdrückung, Raub und Mord. **

---

Mein exklusiver Beitrag für die zweite GEGENDRUCK, die 224 Seiten umfasst, am 15.10.2024 veröffentlicht wurde und unter www.gegendruck.eu bestellt werden kann. Nur durch die Unterstützung von analogen Formaten dieser Art wird aus der Gegenwart eine Vergangenheit, die man in der uns drohenden Zukunft noch zu rekonstruieren vermag. * Original mit Quellen: www.regenauer.press/blog/regieren-ist-ok*

---

»Wenn das Volk die Regierung fürchtet, haben wir Tyrannei. Wenn die Regierung das Volk fürchtet, haben wir Freiheit« – soll Thomas Jefferson, einer der Gründerväter der USA, dereinst festgehalten haben. Wer sich also in Anbetracht des Status quo noch nicht ganz si-cher ist, mit welchem Herrschaftssystem ihn die kriegslüsterne Biosicherheitsdoktrin der Postmoderne beglückt, mag in Jeffersons Worten entsprechende Inspiration finden. Denn mit Demokratie hat die ohrenbetäubende Kakofonie von Stil-, Rechts- und Sinnbrüchen selbstverständlich nichts zu tun. Die verblassende Pluralismussimulation der zurückliegen-den Dekaden mausert sich zu dem, was mental mobile Staatstheoretiker, Historiker, Philoso-phen, Journalisten und Aktivisten seit langem erwarten – einer offen kriminellen Terrorherr-schaft. Selten war klarer als jetzt: Regieren ist organisierte Kriminalität.

Folgt man Thomas Hobbes und Friedrich Nietzsche, ist der Staat ein »Ungeheuer«. Wäh-rend Hobbes diesen Umstand durchaus goutierte, fand Nietzsche ihn abstoßend. Und zwar zurecht. Denn die repressiven Züge, die das Staatskonzept seit der frühen Neuzeit kenn-zeichnen, sind inhärenter Bestandteil der Politikproduktion. Egal, welche Ideologie ein Staat vertritt, seinen Souveränitätsanspruch kann er nur mit Gewalt durchsetzen. Nach außen mit Krieg, nach innen mit dem auf konstant interpretationsoffener werdenden Gesetzen basieren-den Gewaltmonopol. Im Rahmen seiner Halbwertszeit durchläuft jedes Herrschaftskonstrukt vergleichbare Zyklen. Ist ein Staat gegründet, eine Regierung ausgerufen, institutionalisiert sie das favorisierte politische Modell – Demokratie, Sozialismus, Konservatismus, Libera-lismus, et cetera – und vereinnahmt ihre Untertanen mit Indoktrination, Zugeständnissen und moderater Autonomie. Doch Macht korrumpiert. Und macht gierig. Vor allem in repräsenta-tiven Systemen wie der korporatisierten Sozialdemokratie, wo Einfluss einen monetären Wert darstellt.

Die Folge: Lobbyismus, Korruption, Lagerbildung, Grabenkämpfe und Obszönitäten. Einer Phase relativer Freiheit und Prosperität folgt so bald eine mehr oder weniger harsche »Ent-differenzierung« (Wolfgang Merkel, 2010) – also die Auflösung alter Strukturen, Funktio-nen und Integrationsmechanismen. Die herrschenden »Machteliten« (C. Wright Mills, 1956) grenzen sich nach zwei Seiten ab. Auf der einen von regimetreuen Bewahrern des ursprüng-lichen Konzepts, den Konservativen, auf der anderen von den Gegnern »progressiver« Re-formen. Reformen, von denen zumeist die von wachsender staatlicher Machtfülle benachtei-ligte Bevölkerung betroffen ist. Diese zahlt natürlich auch die Zeche. Rechtsprechung und Medien passen sich diesem zusehends autoritären Umfeld an, um ihre Daseinsberechtigung nicht einzubüßen. Mit dem Implementierungsgrad solcher Reformprojekte aus dem Elfen-beinturm, in der Regel begleitet von ausufernder Bürokratie, wachsen die Widerstände dage-gen. Aus Autokratie wird Totalitarismus. »Erst ist es ein Polizeistaat, dann kommen die Aufstände«. Die »Mistgabeln« (Nick Hanauer, 2014). Aus der Vogelperspektive betrachtet sind es stets die gleichen zivilisatorischen Prozesse. Seit Jahrhunderten. In allen Systemen. Offen ist nur, wie brutal der Staat vorgehen muss, um sich an der Macht zu halten – und wie lange es dauert, bis die Arroganz der wenigen dennoch an der Macht der vielen erstickt.

Denn schlussendlich fällt jedes Imperium. Das lehrt die Geschichte. Hat das System den Zenit überschritten, fällt ob der grotesken Machtexzesse und Schizophrenitäten auch den konformistischsten Etatisten auf, dass die politmediale Schmierenkomödie nichts mehr mit der Realität des eigenen Lebens zu tun hat. Gewalt greift Raum. Psychische Gewalt – und physische. Demnach hat nun zweifelsohne auch der vermeintlich liberale Rechtsstaat der von supranationalen Verordnungen diktierten Gegenwart sein finales Entwicklungsstadium er-reicht: Die Tyrannei.

»Seht uns nur an. Alles ist verdreht, alles steht Kopf. Ärzte zerstören Gesundheit, Anwälte zerstören Gerechtigkeit, Psychiater zerstören Verstand, Wissenschaftler zerstören Wahr-heit, Massenmedien zerstören Information, Religionen zerstören Spiritualität und Regierun-gen zerstören die Freiheit.« (Michael Ellner)

Neu ist das alles nicht. Nur die Darreichungsformen und Machtinstrumente von Herrschaft wandeln sich über die Jahrhunderte. Die disziplinierenden Kontrollmechanismen zur Subor-dination der Massen professionalisieren sich im Rahmen des technologischen Fortschritts. So wirkt der Panoptismus der Postmoderne vor allem deshalb monströs, weil unser Gehirn evolutionär nicht darauf eingestellt ist. Es ist der Militarisierung von Information im Dauer-feuer multimedialer Infantilisierungspropaganda in den wenigsten Fällen gewachsen. Wer versucht, dieser omnipräsenten Pervertierung von Realität mit tradierten Denk- und Hand-lungsmustern zu begegnen, geht unter.

Nicht umsonst klagt der »Widerstand« in weiten Teilen über Erschöpfungszustände, Ver-schleiß, Burnout und Depression. Genau da soll er in Augen des Staatskonzeptes sein – am Ende. Aufgerieben. Entmutigt. Ohnmächtig. Dabei wäre gerade Humor das Patentrezept, um auch düsteren Zeiten ein erfülltes Leben abzugewinnen. Ein freies Leben. Denn frei wird man nicht, frei ist man – oder eben nicht. Freiheit ist eine Geisteshaltung, kein organisatori-sches Problem.

»Unsere Gesellschaft wird von Wahnsinnigen mit wahnsinnigen Zielen geführt. (…) Und ich denke, ich werde als Wahnsinniger eingesperrt, wenn ich das zum Ausdruck bringe. Das ist das Verrückte daran.« (John Lennon)

In diesem Lichte betrachtet nimmt es also kaum Wunder, dass das primäre Ziel der regieren-den Kaste darin besteht, die Bevölkerung in Angst, Armut, Abhängigkeiten und Agonie zu halten. Selbstbestimmte, selbstbewusste Individuen hätten nämlich nicht nur die Zeit, son-dern auch die mentale Kapazität und die Mittel, das Ponzi-Schema des polit-finanziellen Komplexes intellektuell wie organisatorisch zu durchdringen. Dementsprechend ist das Staatskonzept auch nicht darauf ausgelegt, das Individuum zu fördern. Es dient der Imple-mentierung eines konformistischen Kollektivismus. Die Massen sollen sich um die Flagge scharen. Wer kritische Fragen stellt und sich der Polonaise der Gutgläubigen verweigert, gilt als Landesverräter.

Doch nicht nur die vermeintlichen Häretiker sind Opfer staatlicher Willkür und Gewaltherr-schaft. Jeder Bürger stellt per se eine potenzielle Gefahr für die Machthaber dar. Dement-sprechend agiert das »Ungeheuer« Staat. Es führt einen konstanten – mehr oder weniger vernichtenden – Krieg gegen die eigene Bevölkerung. Welche Waffen in diesem Gefecht zum Einsatz kommen, erläutert ein von Wikileaks am 13. Juni 2008 veröffentlichtes Ge-heimdokument der US-Armee vom 20. September 1994. Titel: »Foreign Internal Defense Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Special Forces«. Zu Deutsch: Taktiken, Techniken und Verfahren zur internen Verteidigung im Ausland für Spezialeinheiten. Julian Assange nannte es einmal »das wichtigste Dokument, das Wikileaks je veröffentlichte«. Aus gutem Grund. Denn während der Titel des 219 Seiten umfassenden Strategiepapiers darauf abstellt, dass es sich um Arbeitsanweisungen für Spezialeinheiten handelt, die im Ausland operieren, sind die beschriebenen Methoden der asymmetrischen Kriegsführung genau jene, unter de-nen – neben dem Rest der Welt – auch die amerikanische Bevölkerung leidet.

Die US-Armee beschreibt im Detail, wie die verdeckt operierenden Kräfte Regierungen ab-setzen, Oppositionsgruppen infiltrieren, die Bevölkerung manipulieren und Kriege initiieren sollen. Auf Gesetze, Moral oder Kollateralschäden wird dabei keine Rücksicht genommen. Primäres Ziel – koste es, was es wolle – ist die Durchsetzung der Pax Americana im Zielge-biet. Ein paar Zitate verdeutlichen, wie das »Ungeheuer« dabei vorgeht.

»Aufstände sind nicht einfach zufällige politische Gewalt; sie sind gezielte politische Gewalt. Sie erfordern eine Führung, die Vision, Richtung, Anleitung, Koordination und organisato-rische Kohärenz bietet. Die Anführer der Aufständischen müssen ihre Sache dem Volk be-kannt machen und die Unterstützung der Bevölkerung gewinnen. (…) Ihre Ausbildung, ihr Hintergrund, ihre Familie, ihre sozialen Verbindungen und Erfahrungen prägen ihr Den-ken und die Art und Weise, wie sie ihre Ziele erreichen. Diese Faktoren prägen auch ihre Herangehensweise an die Problemlösung.« (S. 13)

»Die Ideologie von Gruppen innerhalb der Bewegung kann auf unterschiedliche Ansichten über strategische Ziele hinweisen. Gruppen können ideologische Konflikte haben, die gelöst werden müssen, bevor ein Gegner daraus Kapital schlagen kann. Die Ideologie kann wahr-scheinliche Ziele und Taktiken nahelegen. Sie beeinflusst stark die Wahrnehmung der Um-gebung durch den Aufständischen. Diese Wahrnehmung der Umgebung wiederum prägt die organisatorischen und operativen Methoden der Bewegung.« (S. 14)

»Wenn eine Situation explosiv ist, kann fast jedes Ereignis als auslösendes Ereignis dienen. Das richtige Timing kann auch in kurzer Zeit eine Flut von Ereignissen hervorrufen, sodass es schwierig ist, ein einzelnes Ereignis als die Handlung zu bezeichnen, die den Kampf aus-gelöst hat. Daher kann es hilfreicher sein, eine Reihe von Handlungen als auslösendes Er-eignis zu betrachten. Auslösende Ereignisse können historisch sein – und die Aufständi-schen erinnern die Bevölkerung an das Ereignis. Diese Technik befreit den Aufständischen davon, auf ein geeignetes Ereignis zu warten.« (S. 18)

»Oft sind es die Armen, die im Krieg kämpfen. CSDF-Programme (CSDF: Civilian Self-Defense Force) bieten der wohlhabenden Klasse die Möglichkeit, direkt und persönlich am Kampf gegen Gesetzlosigkeit und Aufstände beteiligt zu sein. Geschäftsleute und Fachleute beteiligen sich an CSDF aus einem Gefühl der bürgerlichen Pflicht, aus Stolz und aus der Notwendigkeit, ihr Vermögen zu schützen. Ihre aktive Beteiligung verleiht dem Programm Glaubwürdigkeit, stärkt die Legitimität der Regierung und verringert Klassenkonflikte. Wohlhabendes Personal kann bei der Ausstattung seiner Einheiten mithelfen. Es darf ihnen jedoch nicht gestattet sein, den Teilnehmern ein Gehalt zu zahlen.« (S. 128)

»PSYOP-Personal oder in PSYOP ausgebildete SFOD-Mitglieder (SFOD: Special Forces Operational Detachment) erleichtern die Zusammenarbeit zwischen der lokalen Bevölke-rung und dem HN-Militär (HN: Host Nation). Wenn qualifiziertes oder fähiges HN-Personal verfügbar ist, arbeitet das US-Personal durch sie. CSDF-Elemente müssen in der Anwendung von PSYOP geschult werden, um die Bevölkerung über die Vorteile zu informie-ren, die sie durch die Zusammenarbeit mit ihnen erzielen. PSYOP-Themen müssen sich an nationale und/oder fiktive Themen halten, um eine einheitliche Politik darzustellen. Es ist entscheidend, dass PSYOP zunächst an die lokale Bevölkerung gerichtet wird, um ihre Un-terstützung der Aufständischen zu beenden und ihre Akzeptanz und Zusammenarbeit für das CSDF-Programm zu gewinnen. (…) PSYOP kann die Mission unterstützen, indem es die aufständischen Kräfte bei neutralen Gruppen diskreditiert, Zwietracht unter den Auf-ständischen selbst sät und Überläuferprogramme unterstützt. Spaltungsprogramme führen zu Zwietracht, Desorganisation, niedriger Moral, Subversion und Überläufern innerhalb der aufständischen Kräfte. Wichtig sind auch nationale Programme, um Aufständische mit Angeboten von Amnestie und Belohnungen auf die Seite der Regierung zu ziehen. Die Motive für eine Kapitulation können von persönlichen Rivalitäten und Bitterkeit bis hin zu Desillusi-onierung und Entmutigung reichen. Druck seitens der Sicherheitskräfte hat Überzeugungs-kraft. (…) Alle Agenten werden genau beobachtet und diejenigen, die nicht zuverlässig sind, werden abgelöst. Wenige, zielgerichtete, zuverlässige Agenten sind besser und wirtschaftli-cher als viele schlechte. (…) Sicherheitskräfte können Einzelpersonen aus der Bevölkerung dazu bringen, Informanten zu werden. Sicherheitskräfte nutzen verschiedene Motive (Staatsbürgersinn, Patriotismus, Angst, Strafvermeidung, Dankbarkeit, Rache oder Eifer-sucht, finanzielle Belohnungen) als überzeugende Argumente. Sie nutzen die Zusicherung des Schutzes vor Repressalien als Hauptanreiz.« (S. 139, ff)

Zusammengefasst: Die Reichen bezahlen, sorgen für Stimmung und Glaubwürdigkeit, die politische Klasse passt die Vorgehensweise an lokale Strukturen, herrschende Ideologien, Demoskopie und Kommunikationsprozesse an – und die Armen werden zum Sterben an die Front geschickt. Und das sind nur kurze Einblicke in ein über 200 Seiten starkes Handbuch zum Krieg gegen die Zivilbevölkerung, die in Augen des Hegemon offenkundig nichts ande-res als Verfügungsmasse und Kanonenfutter ist. Man möchte Julian Assange beipflichten: Dieses Dokument erklärt nicht nur, warum unsere Gesellschaften, die Wirtschaft und das moralische Koordinatensystem des Homo sapiens in Auflösung begriffen sind – die Skru-pellosigkeit der im Detail beschriebenen Methoden lässt einem das Blut in den Adern gefrie-ren. Selbst nach auszugsweiser Lektüre muss man konstatieren: Nietzsche hatte Recht. Der Staat ist ein eiskaltes Ungeheuer.

Doch was ist der Staat? War es früher das klar erkenntliche Machtvehikel von Monarchen, Imperatoren, Familiendynastien und Klerus, erweckt das Staatskonzept der jüngeren Neuzeit gerne den Eindruck, es hätte sich von dieser Despotie der wenigen gelöst, stünde für sich, auf einem Fundament des Volkswillens, der sich in Verfassungen, Gesetzen und Wahlen widerspiegelt. Weit gefehlt. Auch die »Global Governance« von heute ist nichts anderes als Despotismus. Weithin kontrolliert von den gleichen Bankenkartellen, Familien, Unterneh-men und Organisationen, die seit Generationen den Lauf der Welt bestimmen. Die Regenbo-gen emanierende Pluralismussimulation der Postmoderne verbirgt diesen Umstand nur bes-ser. Sie tyrannisiert indirekt. Köpfe werden nicht mehr abgeschlagen, sondern gewaschen. Exakt so, wie es die angloamerikanischen Vordenker dieses Systems im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert insinuierten. Siehe Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966, Kapitel »The Fu-ture in Perspective«, Seite 1247:

»Das Argument, dass die beiden Parteien entgegengesetzte Ideale und politische Ansichten vertreten sollten, eine vielleicht rechts, die andere links, ist eine törichte Idee, die nur für doktrinäre und akademische Denker akzeptabel ist. Stattdessen sollten die beiden Parteien nahezu identisch sein, sodass das amerikanische Volk die Schurken bei jeder Wahl raus-werfen kann, ohne dass es zu tiefgreifenden oder umfassenden politischen Veränderungen kommt. Die politischen Pläne, die für Amerika lebenswichtig und notwendig sind, sind nicht länger Gegenstand großer Meinungsverschiedenheiten, sondern nur noch in Einzelheiten des Verfahrens, der Priorität oder der Methode umstritten.«

Sodass nach Scheindebatten, Empörungsmanagement und Abstimmungen nicht vom allge-meinen Kurs abgewichen werden muss. Was Quigleys elitäre Zirkel – er war bis zur Veröf-fentlichung von Tragedy and Hope einer von ihnen und unterstützte ihre Ideen – für die Rückführung der 13 US-Kolonien sowie die moderne Expansion des britischen Empire vor-sahen, ist heute zentrales Element der wertewestlichen Fassadendemokratie. Symptombe-sprechung, Lippenbekenntnisse, Emotionsamplituden, »Der Dritte Weg« – »wo soziale Ge-rechtigkeit und Markt miteinander versöhnt werden sollen« – und auch nach der x-ten Wahl bleibt alles beim Alten. Ob Berlin, Brüssel, London, New York, Beirut oder Peking: Ein Potemkin’sches Dorf. Denn wir leben längst in der Idealvorstellung von Benito Mussolini, der den perfekten Faschismus als Korporatismus bezeichnete und als symbiotische Fusion der Macht von Staat und Konzernen verstand. Als »Public Private Partnership«.

»Benito Mussolini hat der modernen Sparpolitik den Weg bereitet und die Arbeiterbewe-gung unterdrückt. Liberale Ökonomen im In- und Ausland bewunderten ihn dafür«, schrieb man bei Jacobin am 6. März 2023. So zeitigt das Staatskonzept dieser Tage die gleichen ver-heerenden Folgen wie die Herrschaftskonstrukte der Vergangenheit. Vertikale Durchlässig-keit begrenzt, das Volk manipuliert, ausgebeutet und gegängelt. Anstelle von Arbeitslagern, Schlägertrupps und Exekutionskommandos machen heute Algorithmen die Drecksarbeit. Sonst hat sich kaum etwas geändert.

Stand heute leben nach Angaben von Oxfam weltweit knapp fünf Milliarden mehr Men-schen in Armut als vor 2020. Das sind die ärmsten 60 Prozent der Menschheit. Zusammen haben sie circa 20 Milliarden US-Dollar verloren. Das Gesamtvermögen der reichsten Deut-schen wuchs im gleichen Zeitraum von 89 auf 155 Milliarden US-Dollar – ein Zuwachs von 73,85 Prozent. Die 148 größten Konzerne der Welt konnten zwischen Juni 2022 und Juni 2023 circa 1,8 Billionen Dollar an Gewinnen verzeichnen – ein Anstieg von 52,5 Prozent gegenüber dem Durchschnitt der Jahre 2018 bis 2021. Der Reingewinn stieg gegenüber die-sem Zeitraum um 20 Prozent auf 700 Milliarden Dollar. Und die fünf reichsten Menschen der Welt haben ihr Vermögen seit 2020 verdoppelt. Wer vom Nachhaltigkeitskorporatismus profitiert, dürfte damit geklärt sein.

Der Normalbürger dagegen kämpft gegen steigende Steuern, Inflation und anziehende Ener-giekosten. In einem luftabschnürenden Korsett von Verträgen, Verpflichtungen und Ver-bindlichkeiten gefangen, bleibt weder Zeit noch Geld für ein Leben in Würde. Der angepass-te Regenbogendemokrat wird geboren, indoktriniert, ausgebeutet und dann bestattet. Indivi-duelle Entfaltung ist in diesem Lebensentwurf von der Stange nicht vorgesehen. Die leitme-dialen Podiumsdiskussionen um Work-Life-Balance, Gendersprache und feministische Au-ßenpolitik klingen in den Ohren der buckelnden Arbeiterklasse – und auch für weite Teilen des schwindenden Mittelstandes – wie blanker Hohn. Das Habitat des Mediazän, das nicht selten den Eindruck erweckt, man lebe in einer fehlerhaft programmierten Simulation, zwingt seinen Bewohner immer häufiger dazu, sich existenziellen Problemen zu stellen: Unterkunft, Nahrung, Fortpflanzung. Überleben.

Noch bezahlt er Jahreslizenzen für Cloud-Software, Netflix für Filme und Streamingdienste für Musik, die er früher erwarb und dann einfach besaß. Noch geht er wählen und entschei-det brav zwischen Pest und Cholera, um vier weitere Jahre nicht die Hoffnung zu verlieren. Noch glaubt, ignoriert oder kommentiert er leidensfähig die intelligenzbeleidigenden Lügen-gebilde, die als Realität vermarktet werden.

Mithin erstaunlich. Denn nicht erst seit der Corona-Krise belegen nackte Zahlen, dass der Mensch in diesem System nicht nur beraubt und unterdrückt, sondern auch als Versuchska-ninchen für den pharmakologisch-finanziellen Komplex missbraucht wird. Nürnberger Ko-dex hin oder her. Während Robert Koch vor der Schaffung dieses vermeintlichen Bollwerks für die körperliche Unversehrtheit noch ungestraft Menschenversuche in seinen kolonialen Konzentrationslagern durchführen durfte, ist das Thema seit Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges tabu. Gesetzlich eliminiert. Angeblich. Doch bereits in den 1940er Jahren infizierte der US-Gesundheitsdienst Gefängnisinsassen und psychisch kranke Personen mit Syphilis-Erregern. Von 1946 bis 1949 weiteten die USA das Programm auf Guatemala aus und machten sich zusätzlich über Soldaten und Prostituierte her. Das Echo der angelsächsisch geprägten Eugeniklehre hallte im fortgeführten Rassismus nach.

»Schockierende Fälle wie der Tod der 49 Kinder nach Medikamententests in einem indi-schen Krankenhaus sind in der Geschichte der Medizin nichts Neues: In den USA wurde Farbigen zu Studienzwecken von 1932 bis 1972 die Syphilis-Therapie verweigert.« (SZ, Das Verbrechen von Tuskegee, 11. Mai 2010)

Am 20. September 1950 spritzte die US-Marine vor der Küste San Franciscos Mikroben in die Troposphäre, um zu testen, welche Effekte ein Angriff mit Biowaffen auf die damals 800.000 Einwohner der Stadt haben würde. 1953 startete die CIA das MK-Ultra-Programm, in dessen Rahmen abertausenden ahnungsloser Menschen LSD verabreicht wurde. Zwei Jahre später nahm »Project Whitecoat« – Projekt Weißkittel – seine Arbeit auf. Die bestand im Verlauf der folgenden 20 Jahre darin, Menschenversuche mit Hasenpest, Typhus, Gelb-fieber und Milzbrand durchzuführen. Und Ende der 60er testeten die amerikanischen Streit-kräfte Nervengas an den eigenen Soldaten. Der SPIEGEL schrieb diesbezüglich am 10. Juli 2013:

»11. Oktober, 16:25 Uhr, 26 Stunden nach Testbeginn. Kleine blutende Anomalien am lin-ken Bein festgestellt. Subjekt behauptet, es habe seinen Rasierer fallen gelassen und sich dabei ins Bein geschnitten – doch so war es nicht. Er habe seine Sommersprossen damals für Käfer gehalten, sagt Rochelle: »Die krabbelten überall unter meiner Haut herum«. Den Betreuern habe er nichts davon erzählt, es sei ihm peinlich gewesen: »Ich habe meine Ra-sierklinge genommen und versucht, die Käfer aus meiner Haut zu schneiden.« Er war längst nicht mehr selbst dazu in der Lage, die Experimente zu stoppen. Damit war die Ein-verständniserklärung Makulatur. So wie Frank Rochelle ergeht es in Edgewood mehr als 7.800 US-Soldaten; im ganzen Land sind es rund 100.000. Systematisch haben Militär und Geheimdienste die eigenen Leute seit Ende des Ersten Weltkriegs Giften, Gasen, Drogen und Psycho-Kampfstoffen ausgesetzt, darunter LSD, Sarin, Senfgas, BZ, VX, Barbiturate, Amphetamine, Chlorpromazin und immer so weiter. Nachsorgeuntersuchungen? Fehlan-zeige. Erst nach fast sechs Jahrzehnten stoppt das US-Parlament die Menschenversuche im Jahr 1975.«

Ebenfalls bis weit in die 70er hinein injizierte man US-Gefängnisinsassen Pestizide und Herbizide. Mindestens 2.600 Menschen wurden derartigen Versuchen unterzogen. Natürlich musste auch die Atombombe am lebenden Objekt getestet werden. Sowohl Frankreich als auch Großbritannien, die ehemalige Sowjetunion oder die USA schickten Menschen auf die Testgelände. Viele von ihnen segneten danach relativ rasch das Zeitliche. Bis heute kämpfen Bewohner der entsprechenden Landstriche um Entschädigungen, weil sie ihre Krebserkran-kungen der im Umland von Testgebieten gestreuten Strahlung zuschreiben. In den 70ern machte sich der Journalist Paul Jacobs auf eigene Faust daran, die Geschichte der Betroffe-nen zu dokumentieren – um 1978 selbst an Krebs zu sterben. Selbst vor Versuchen an Kin-dern schreckte das »Ungeheuer« nie zurück, wie wiederum der SPIEGEL in Ausgabe 45 vom 2. November 1986 ausführt:

»Dwayne winkte seiner Mutter zu, sie lächelte zurück, dann schloss sich die schwere Eisen-tür hinter dem todkranken Kind. Seit drei Jahren wurde Dwayne Sexton am Strahleninstitut des Atomforschungszentrums Oak Ridge im Bundesstaat Tennessee gegen Leukämie be-handelt. Er hatte eine qualvolle Knochenmark-Transplantation sowie etliche Runden von Chemotherapie hinter sich. Alles war vergeblich geblieben. Als letztes Mittel wollten die Ärz-te nun versuchen, mit massiver Bestrahlung die Krebszellen im Knochenmark des Kindes zu zerstören. Dass diese Methode riskant und – zur damaligen Zeit, 1968 – auch wenig er-probt war, teilten die Ärzte den Eltern des Kindes mit. Was sie aber verschwiegen, war, dass sie auch im Auftrag der amerikanischen Weltraumbehörde NASA arbeiteten. Sie soll-ten herausfinden, wieviel Strahlung Astronauten im All aushalten würden, ohne krank zu werden. Für die von der NASA bestellte Untersuchung erprobten die Ärzte an ihren Patien-ten, so hieß es in einem ihrer Berichte, verschiedene »therapeutische Szenarien, die aus Strahlenmengen im All abgeleitet wurden«. Im Klartext: Nicht allein medizinische Erwä-gungen zum Wohl des Patienten setzten die Höhe der Strahlendosis fest, sondern auch die Bedürfnisse der NASA. In diesem Sinn waren die Patienten lebende Versuchskaninchen.«

Mindestens 23.000 US-Amerikaner wurden von Militäreinrichtungen und Gesundheitsbe-hörden vorsätzlich verstrahlt. Zu Forschungszwecken. »Kalter Krieg gegen US-Bevölkerung« nannte es die taz am 24. Oktober 1994.

»Zwischen 1950 und 1972 finanzierte das Pentagon außerdem fünf klinische Studien über die Aufnahmefähigkeit des menschlichen Körpers von Strahlen, um Aussagen über die psy-chologischen wie biologischen Folgen von Atomexplosionen zu erhalten. Die Versuchsper-sonen waren größtenteils in Armut lebende Schwarze. (…) Bei einem anderen Experiment mussten Soldaten auf Fässern mit radioaktivem Material herumfahren, um zu prüfen, ob ihre Autos sie vor den Strahlen schützten. In Hanford im US-Bundesstaat Washington setz-ten die Militärs absichtlich eine nukleare Wolke frei, um die Verlagerung der Wolke zu un-tersuchen. Aufgrund einer plötzlichen Änderung der Wetterlage fielen die radioaktiven Teil-chen auf einem 300 Kilometer langen und 60 Kilometer breiten Gebiet nieder (…). (jW, 29. August 1997)

Der Umgang mit der indigenen Bevölkerung wirft kein besseres Licht auf die Vereinigten Staaten. Von fünf bis sieben Millionen Ureinwohnern im Jahr 1500 waren im Jahr 1900 noch 237.000 übrig. Ob Hungersnöte, Sklavenarbeit, Massaker, Umsiedlungen oder »Boar-ding Schools« – Umerziehungsinternate: Die aus Großbritannien eingereisten Siedler verüb-ten einen Genozid an den indigenen Stämmen. Nachdem die mageren Reste der stolzen Indi-anervölker in Reservate gepfercht worden waren, suchte der Staat deren Fortpflanzung mit-tels Zwangssterilisation zu verhindern. Mehr als 60.000 Indigene wurden im 20. Jahrhundert einer solch abscheulichen Behandlung unterzogen. Darüber hinaus war das Eugenik-Programm der USA, das erst 1981 endgültig eingestellt wurde, Grundlage für die Rassen-lehre des deutschen NS-Regimes.

Ähnlich ging man in Kanada vor. Seit den 1920er Jahren wurden dort tausende indigene Frauen zwangssterilisiert – bis heute – obwohl die entsprechenden Gesetze mittlerweile ab-geschafft wurden. Die tagesschau vermeldet dazu am 10. März 2024:

»Die Worte des weißen Arztes haben sich Liz (…) ins Gedächtnis gebrannt: »Es ist besser, du stimmst der Abtreibung zu. Denn wir werden dir dieses Baby wegnehmen. So oder so«. Die damals 17-jährige Kanadierin vom indigenen Volk der Anishinabe wagt es nicht, zu widersprechen. Verängstigt sitzt sie Ende der 1970er-Jahre im Behandlungsraum der Indi-an Clinic in der Provinz Ontario, einer Klinik, in der Indigene behandelt werden, damit sie an die sogenannte Zivilisation angepasst werden. (…) Die alleinerziehende Mutter sei nicht in der Lage, für ein weiteres Kind zu sorgen. Der Arzt will ihr deshalb die Eileiter abbinden und sie dadurch sterilisieren. (…) Erst Jahre später wird ihr klar: Sie ist nicht allein. Zehn-tausende indigene Frauen sind in Kanada seit den 1920er-Jahren im Einklang mit der Eu-genik-Gesetzgebung gegen ihren Willen sterilisiert worden. Und obwohl es diese Gesetze nicht mehr gibt, geschieht es bis heute, weiß Senatorin Yvonne Boyer im Kongress in Otta-wa (…). Noch immer ist Zwangssterilisation kein Tatbestand im kanadischen Strafgesetz-buch. (…) Vergangenes Jahr wurde in den Nordwest-Territorien ein Arzt bestraft, weil er 2019 eine Inuit-Frau gegen ihren Willen unfruchtbar gemacht hat. Er verlor seine Lizenz – für fünf Monate.«

Dass sich nicht nur das angloamerikanische Empire für Eugenik begeisterte, zeigt die Ein-richtung des ersten rassenbiologischen Instituts in Schweden im Jahr 1921. Zwischen 1935 und 1976 wurden dort circa 62.000 Menschen zwangssterilisiert. Die offiziellen Begrün-dungen für die Eingriffe reichten von »Mischling« über »Alkoholismus« bis zu »dämlich« und »religiös«. Sprich: Reine Willkür unter dem Deckmantel der Wissenschaft. Legalisiert vom schwedischen Staat.

Heute begegnen uns die staatlich organisierten Eugenik-Programme unter wohlklingenden Labels wie Bioethik, reproduktive Gesundheit, biosoziale Forschung und Bevölkerungspoli-tik. Seit 1954 finden die von den Vereinten Nationen (UN) organisierten Weltbevölkerungs-konferenzen statt. Die letzte im November 2019 in Nairobi (Kenia). Was bei diesen Konfe-renzen besprochen wird, lässt sich anhand eines Artikels des GUARDIAN vom 15. April 2012 oder eines Beitrags von C-Fam (Center for Family and Human Rights) erahnen:

»Großbritannien hat 166 Millionen Pfund (268 Millionen Dollar) für ein Regierungspro-gramm in Indien gespendet, das arme Frauen und Männer zwangssterilisiert. Die britische Hilfsorganisation nannte die Notwendigkeit, dem Klimawandel durch Bevölkerungsreduzie-rung zu begegnen, als Hauptgrund für die Finanzierung des missbräuchlichen indischen Programms (…). Verpfuschte Operationen verursachten Qualen, Blutungen und Todesfäl-le. In einer von der britischen Regierung ins Visier genommenen Region verblutete die 35-jährige Frau eines armen Arbeiters, die mit Zwillingen schwanger war. Einige Frauen, die während der Schwangerschaft sterilisiert wurden, erlitten Fehlgeburten. Einige wurden mit weniger als acht Dollar und einem Sari bestochen, anderen wurde mit dem Verlust ihrer Lebensmittelkarten gedroht. Manchen wurde gesagt, die Operationen dienten der allgemei-nen Gesundheitsfürsorge, und sie erfuhren den wahren Zweck erst zu spät. Kliniken erhiel-ten Prämien für mehr als dreißig Operationen pro Tag. Nichtstaatliche Mitarbeiter wurden für jede Person bezahlt, die sie zu einer Operation überredeten. Ein Chirurg, der in einem Schulgebäude arbeitete, führte in zwei Stunden 53 Operationen durch – ohne qualifiziertes Personal, fließendes Wasser oder Mittel zum Reinigen der Geräte. Berichte der indischen Regierung aus den Jahren 2006 und 2009 warnten vor Problemen mit dem Programm. Dennoch empfahl ein Bericht des britischen Ministeriums für internationale Entwicklung aus dem Jahr 2010 die weitere Unterstützung des Programms mit der Begründung, dass eine Reduzierung der Bevölkerungszahl die Treibhausgase senken würde. (…) Sterilisation ist die häufigste Methode der Familienplanung, die in Phase II des indischen Programms für Reproduktions- und Kindergesundheit eingesetzt wird, das 2005 mit britischer Finanzie-rung begann. Trotz der Enthüllungen im ersten Jahr hat Großbritannien keine Bedingungen an seine Finanzierung geknüpft. (…) Im Juli wird Großbritannien zusammen mit der Bill & Melinda Gates Stiftung einen Familienplanungsgipfel in London ausrichten. Ziel der Veran-staltung ist es, beispielloses politisches Engagement und Ressourcen von Entwicklungslän-dern, Gebern, dem privaten Sektor, der Zivilgesellschaft und anderen Partnern zu generie-ren, um den Familienplanungsbedarf von Frauen in den ärmsten Ländern der Welt bis 2020 zu decken, erklärte das britische Ministerium für internationale Entwicklung. Melinda Gates hielt kürzlich eine Rede, in der sie behauptete, dass die Hilfe bei der Empfängnisver-hütung nichts mit Bevölkerungskontrolle oder Zwangssterilisationsprogrammen zu tun ha-be.« (C-Fam, 2. Mai 2012)

»Familienplanungsbedarf«? Dass solche Programme nichts mit »Bevölkerungskontrolle« zu tun haben, ist eine infame Lüge. Schon die von Julian Huxley verfasste Grundsatzschrift der UNESCO von 1946 spricht davon, dass Eugenik wieder salonfähig gemacht werden muss. »Das Undenkbare wenigstens wieder denkbar machen«, nannte Huxley es damals. So muss auch die ungezügelte Massenmigration als Waffe im mittlerweile allgegenwärtigen Kampf der Kulturen verstanden werden. Dabei ist allerdings nicht die Migration selbst das Problem – denn auch die Migranten sind Opfer dieser Agenda – sondern der jeweilige Auslöser für diese Zuwanderungsströme. Die verarmten, verzweifelten, traumatisierten, mit falschen Ver-sprechungen gelockten und als Spaltpilz missbrauchten Menschen für die Symptome des wertwestlichen Neokolonialismus verantwortlich zu machen, greift zu kurz.

Die chaotischen Zustände auf deutschen, britischen, schwedischen und französischen Stra-ßen sind kein Zufall, sondern gewollt. Das belegt ein Strategiepapier der Vereinten Nationen, das am 21. März 2000 publiziert wurde. Titel des Dokuments: »Replacement Migration: Is it A Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?« Übersetzt: »Ersatzmigration: Ist sie eine Lösung für schrumpfende und alternde Bevölkerungen?«. Auf 177 Seiten erläutert die Stu-die, wie Frankreich, Großbritannien, Deutschland, Italien, Japan oder Russland zurückge-hende Geburtenraten durch massenhafte Zuwanderung kompensieren sollen. Auf den Seiten 32 und 33 liest man diesbezüglich:

»Abbildung 1 zeigt einen standardisierten Vergleich der Zuwanderungsströme pro Million Einwohner (Stand: 2000). Aus diesem Vergleich geht hervor, dass im Verhältnis zur Lan-desgröße die Zahl der Einwanderer, die im Zeitraum 2000-2050 pro Jahr benötigt wird, um den Bestand der Bevölkerung im erwerbsfähigen Alter zu erhalten (Szenario IV), mit 6.500 Einwanderern auf eine Million Einwohner in Italien am höchsten ist, gefolgt von Deutschland mit 6.000 Einwanderern pro Jahr auf eine Million Einwohner. Von den in die-sem Bericht untersuchten Ländern und Regionen benötigten die Vereinigten Staaten mit et-wa 1.300 Einwanderern auf eine Million Einwohner die geringste Zahl von Einwanderern, um einen Rückgang ihrer Bevölkerung im erwerbsfähigen Alter zu verhindern.«

»Die Zahl der Einwanderer, die notwendig ist, um ein Schrumpfen der Bevölkerung im er-werbsfähigen Alter auszugleichen, übersteigt diejenige, die einen Rückgang der Gesamtbe-völkerung ausgleichen würde, um ein Erhebliches. Ob solche höheren Einwanderungszah-len zu den Optionen gehören, die den Regierungen zur Verfügung stehen, hängt zum großen Teil von den sozialen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Verhältnissen des jeweiligen Landes beziehungsweise der jeweiligen Region ab.«

Wer also annimmt, dass die Destabilisierungskriege und Raubzüge der NATO-Hegemonie nur dem Zwecke dienten, missliebige Regierungen auszutauschen und der Rohstoffe eines Landes habhaft zu werden, liegt offenkundig falsch. Wenn das wertewestliche Imperium irgendwo Demokratie abwirft, hat es dabei auch die strategischen Ziele globaler Bevölke-rungskontrolle im Blick. Migration als Waffe – gerichtet gegen beide involvierten Parteien. Demnach kann man sich nur wünschen, dass die Gewaltausbrüche zwischen einheimischer Bevölkerung und Migranten in den verschiedenen EU-Ländern rasch ein Ende nehmen und sich die von Verzweiflung herrührende Wut beider Parteien auf das eigentliche Problem fo-kussiert: Die herrschende Kaste und ihr gesichtsloses Imperium supranationaler Organisati-onen.

Wahrlich – die Liste an staatlich organisierten, legitimierten, orchestrierten und geduldeten Gräueltaten ließe sich beliebig lange fortführen. Je nachdem, wie weit man zurückzublicken gedenkt. Viele dieser Verbrechen sind Teil der offiziellen Geschichtsschreibung. Jeder weiß es. Dennoch führt dieses Wissen um die Skrupellosigkeit eines im Kern faschistoiden Sys-tems erstaunlicherweise bis heute nicht dazu, dass sich die Menschheit auf andere Formen des Zusammenlebens, der Verwaltung und Organisation einigt. Noch immer sehnen sich die Massen nach Führung, zentraler Steuerung und Ikonen, die ihnen ein besseres Leben ver-sprechen. Dabei belegt die Zivilisationsgeschichte mehr als eindrücklich, dass es sich um leere Versprechen handelt, dass die Hoffnung auf den edlen Ritter, die rettende Wahl oder eine bessere Zukunft reine Illusion ist. Der Machtapparat Staat dient nur einem einzigen Zweck – dem Erhalt des Machtapparats.

Es bedarf demnach auch keiner Diskussion um marginale Optimierungen des herrschenden Systems. Denn wer nur Symptome behandelt, wird die Ursache der Krankheit nicht eliminie-ren. Es bedarf der konstruktiven Debatte darüber, wie dieses System in Gänze zu ersetzen ist.

Dabei gilt es, eigene Narrative zu entwickeln. Geschichten. Vorstellungen von einer freiheit-lich organisierten Zukunft. Von einem lebenswerten morgen. Für eine Zeit nach dem »Un-geheuer«. Wir brauchen Ideen, von denen wir nachfolgende Generationen begeistern kön-nen. Und damit ist nicht die technische Verbesserung des Smartphones oder eine neue App gemeint, sondern eine Utopie. Denn gegen etwas zu sein, ist einfach. Für etwas zu sein, da-gegen nicht.

So engagieren wir uns längst nicht mehr nur für den Erhalt der Meinungsfreiheit, sondern für die Bewahrung des freien Willens. Denn was im Namen des Staates – »im Namen des Volkes« – und damit im Namen jener Menschen, die den Staat durch Wahl oder Duldung legitimieren, geschah, geschieht und geschehen wird, kann kein emotional gesundes Mitglied unserer Spezies wirklich wollen.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Token-Curated Registries

So you want to build a TCR?

TCRs (Token Curated Registries) are a construct for maintaining registries on Ethereum. Imagine you have lots of scissor brands and you want a list with only the good scissors. You want to make sure only the good scissors make into that list and not the bad scissors. For that, people will tell you, you can just create a TCR of the best scissors!

It works like this: some people have the token, let's call it Scissor Token. Some other person, let's say it's a scissor manufacturer, wants to put his scissor on the list, this guy must acquire some Scissor Tokens and "stake" it. Holders of the Scissor Tokens are allowed to vote on "yes" or "no". If "no", the manufactures loses his tokens to the holders, if "yes" then its tokens are kept in deposit, but his scissor brand gets accepted into the registry.

Such a simple process, they say, have strong incentives for being the best possible way of curating a registry of scissors: consumers have the incentive to consult the list because of its high quality; manufacturers have the incentive to buy tokens and apply to join the list because the list is so well-curated and consumers always consult it; token holders want the registry to accept good and reject bad scissors because that good decisions will make the list good for consumers and thus their tokens more valuable, bad decisions will do the contrary. It doesn't make sense, to reject everybody just to grab their tokens, because that would create an incentive against people trying to enter the list.

Amazing! How come such a simple system of voting has such enourmous features? Now we can have lists of everything so well-curated, and for that we just need Ethereum tokens!

Now let's imagine a different proposal, of my own creation: SPCR, Single-person curated registries.

Single-person Curated Registries are equal to TCR, except they don't use Ethereum tokens, it's just a list in a text file kept by a single person. People can apply to join, and they will have to give the single person some amount of money, the single person can reject or accept the proposal and so on.

Now let's look at the incentives of SPCR: people will want to consult the registry because it is so well curated; vendors will want to enter the registry because people are consulting it; the single person will want to accept the good and reject the bad applicants because these good decisions are what will make the list valuable.

Amazing! How such a single proposal has such enourmous features! SPCR are going to take over the internet!

What TCR enthusiasts get wrong?

TCR people think they can just list a set of incentives for something to work and assume that something will work. Mix that with Ethereum hype and they think theyve found something unique and revolutionary, while in fact they're just making a poor implementation of "democracy" systems that fail almost everywhere.

The life is not about listing a set of "incentives" and then considering the problems solved. Almost everybody on the Earth has the incentive for being rich: being rich has a lot of advantages over being poor, however not all people get rich! Why are the incentives failing?

Curating lists is a hard problem, it involves a lot of knowledge about the problem that just holding a token won't give you, it involves personal preferences, politics, it involves knowing where is the real limit between "good" and "bad". The Single Person list may have a good result if the single person doing the curation is knowledgeable and honest (yes, you can game the system to accept your uncle's scissors and not their competitor that is much better, for example, without losing the entire list reputation), same thing for TCRs, but it can also fail miserably, and it can appear to be good but be in fact not so good. In all cases, the list entries will reflect the preferences of people choosing and other things that aren't taken into the incentives equation of TCR enthusiasts.

We don't need lists

The most important point to be made, although unrelated to the incentive story, is that we don't need lists. Imagine you're looking for a scissor. You don't want someone to tell if scissor A or B are "good" or "bad", or if A is "better" than B. You want to know if, for your specific situation, or for a class of situations, A will serve well, and do that considering A's price and if A is being sold near you and all that.

Scissors are the worst example ever to make this point, but I hope you get it. If you don't, try imagining the same example with schools, doctors, plumbers, food, whatever.

Recommendation systems are badly needed in our world, and TCRs don't solve these at all.

@ d8c59f3c:984e482e

sfgdfgdfgdfgdfgdfg

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/459409

@ fa0165a0:03397073

Chef's notes

This recipe is for 48 buns. Total cooking time takes at least 90 minutes, but 60 minutes of that is letting the dough rest in between processing.

The baking is a simple three-step process. 1. Making the Wheat dough 2. Making and applying the filling 3. Garnishing and baking in the oven

When done: Enjoy during Fika!

PS;

• Can be frozen and thawed in microwave for later enjoyment as well.

• If you need unit conversion, this site may be of help: https://www.unitconverters.net/

• Traditionally we use something we call "Pearl sugar" which is optimal, but normal sugar or sprinkles is okay too. Pearl sugar (Pärlsocker) looks like this: https://search.brave.com/images?q=p%C3%A4rlsocker

Ingredients

• 150 g butter
• 5 dl milk
• 50 g baking yeast (normal or for sweet dough)
• 1/2 teaspoon salt
• 1-1 1/2 dl sugar
• (Optional) 2 teaspoons of crushed or grounded cardamom seeds.
• 1.4 liters of wheat flour
• Filling: 50-75 g butter, room temperature
• Filling: 1/2 - 1 dl sugar
• Filling: 1 teaspoons crushed or ground cardamom and 1 teaspoons ground cinnamon (or 2 teaspoons of cinnamon)
• Garnish: 1 egg, sugar or Almond Shavings

Directions

1. Melt the butter/margarine in a saucepan.
2. Pour in the milk and allow the mixture to warm reach body temperature (approx. + 37 ° C).
3. Dissolve the yeast in a dough bowl with the help of the salt.
4. Add the 37 ° C milk/butter mixture, sugar and if you choose to the optional cardamom. (I like this option!) and just over 2/3 of the flour.
5. Work the dough shiny and smooth, about 4 minutes with a machine or 8 minutes by hand.
6. Add if necessary. additional flour but save at least 1 dl for baking.
7. Let the dough rise covered (by a kitchen towel), about 30 minutes.
8. Work the dough into the bowl and then pick it up on a floured workbench. Knead the dough smoothly. Divide the dough into 2 parts. Roll out each piece into a rectangular cake.
9. Stir together the ingredients for the filling and spread it.
10. Roll up and cut each roll into 24 pieces.
11. Place them in paper molds or directly on baking paper with the cut surface facing up. Let them rise covered with a baking sheet, about 30 minutes.
12. Brush the buns with beaten egg and sprinkle your chosen topping.
13. Bake in the middle of the oven at 250 ° C, 5-8 minutes.
14. Allow to cool on a wire rack under a baking sheet.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

🇧🇷 pt-br version

The European Union is at a crossroads. While digital innovation and security cooperation remain critical in a connected world, recent proposals to enhance police surveillance and data sharing are stirring deep concerns about individual privacy, data security, and democratic oversight. Two recent reports published by Statewatch shed light on troubling developments in the EU’s policing landscape, raising alarms among privacy advocates and civil rights organizations.

The EU’s new plans to expand police surveillance could put your privacy and rights at risk and introduce risks far outweighing their potential benefits. This article will analyze these proposals, their implications, and the growing opposition from privacy and civil liberties defenders.

Listen the Podcast (Spotify)

Listen the Podcast (Fountain)

Surveillance Infrastructure: Policing by Design

The first Statewatch report, titled “Policing by Design: The Latest EU Surveillance Plan”, outlines a concerning trend in the EU’s approach to law enforcement. The proposals advocate embedding surveillance tools directly into the design of new technologies, effectively creating an architecture where policing capabilities are integrated into the systems we use daily.

From facial recognition cameras to AI-driven analytics, the EU plans to enhance cross-border police cooperation by ensuring technology is designed to facilitate surveillance from the outset. Known as “policing by design,” this strategy involves building surveillance features directly into technologies we use every day. Imagine a network of cameras or software that can automatically monitor people’s faces or behaviors without any extra installation — it’s like your everyday tech quietly doubling as a police tool. The goal is to enable seamless sharing of data across borders for criminal investigations, but the unintended consequences are alarming.

The Problem with “Policing by Design”

1. Mass Surveillance Normalized: By embedding surveillance features into public and private infrastructure, society risks normalizing mass surveillance, where every movement, transaction, or online interaction is monitored and analyzed.
2. Threats to Privacy: Such initiatives inherently contradict the principle of privacy by design, which prioritizes privacy protections in the development of technology. Instead, citizens are being treated as subjects of perpetual suspicion.
3. Lack of Transparency and Accountability: A systemic lack of transparency surrounding these plans raises serious governance issues. Civil society organizations, journalists, and privacy advocates have pointed to a lack of democratic oversight and meaningful debate.
4. Risks of Abuse: Surveillance systems are often deployed under the guise of security but are susceptible to abuse. History shows that tools designed for law enforcement can easily be turned against dissenters, journalists, or marginalized communities.

As the report highlights, these developments could establish a permanent surveillance infrastructure across Europe, enabling the collection of biometric, behavioral, and communications data on an unprecedented scale.

Flawed Justifications for Surveillance Expansion

Privacy advocacy organizations, including the European Digital Rights (EDRi) network, argue that much of the justification for these surveillance plans relies on flawed assumptions. The rhetoric of the “Going Dark” report, which claims that law enforcement is losing access to communications due to encryption, has been widely debunked. As EDRi points out, law enforcement already has extensive tools at their disposal to access data and track individuals, but the focus on encryption risks undermining secure communication for everyone.

Instead of addressing systemic issues within law enforcement, these flawed reports have fueled calls for intrusive surveillance systems that risk eroding privacy while offering little evidence of improving public safety.

Centralized Police Data: A Substantial Security and Privacy Threat

A second Statewatch report, titled “EU Police Data Plans Pose Substantial Security and Privacy Threats”, explores another equally concerning initiative: the EU’s push to centralize police data repositories and expand their use.

The EU has already established several large-scale databases, such as the Schengen Information System (SIS), which stores data about individuals who may be denied entry into the EU, and the Europol Information System, which can hold details about millions of people, including those not suspected of crimes. For example, a traveler flagged mistakenly in the system could face unnecessary scrutiny, detention, or restrictions when crossing borders — highlighting the real-world risks of inaccurate or overreaching data collection. The new proposals aim to go further, creating an interoperable web of police data accessible to law enforcement agencies across member states. Proponents argue this is necessary for combating cross-border crime and terrorism, but the risks are immense.

Key Concerns with Centralized Police Data

1. Massive Data Collection: The EU’s proposed systems would require the collection of highly sensitive data, including biometric information (fingerprints, facial recognition scans) and behavioral analytics, to track individuals’ activities across borders.
2. Data Misuse and Security Risks: Centralized data systems are prime targets for cyberattacks, data breaches, and misuse. The larger and more interconnected the system, the greater the risks of unauthorized access, theft, or corruption of the data.
3. As Statewatch points out, the systems lack robust safeguards to prevent misuse or to ensure that data is handled proportionately and lawfully.
4. Erosion of Trust in Law Enforcement: Building centralized data repositories without meaningful safeguards undermines public trust. Individuals may be less willing to engage with law enforcement if they fear their data will be stored indefinitely, shared across borders, or used inappropriately.
5. Impact on Fundamental Rights: Mass police databases can violate the principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of EU law. By collecting and sharing data indiscriminately, these systems erode fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, freedom of movement, and the presumption of innocence.

Civil Society Opposition and Democratic Accountability

In an open letter to EU institutions, over 30 civil society organizations — including EDRi — have criticized the lack of transparency in the High-Level Group’s (HLG) recommendations for data access. The letter highlights a concerning pattern: while industry stakeholders are included in key discussions, civil society voices remain sidelined. This exclusion undermines democratic accountability and reinforces fears that surveillance policies are being driven by corporate interests rather than public well-being.

These organizations have called for the EU to prioritize transparency, include meaningful public debate, and ensure any law enforcement proposals respect proportionality and fundamental rights.

Why Privacy Advocates Are Sounding the Alarm

The reports from Statewatch highlight a fundamental clash between security policy and individual rights. Privacy advocates are urging EU lawmakers to take a step back and critically examine the following issues:

1. Lack of Democratic Oversight: Proposals to integrate surveillance systems and expand police databases are being pushed forward without genuine public debate or oversight. Civil society organizations have been excluded from key discussions.
2. Failure to Uphold Privacy Laws: The EU has some of the strongest privacy laws in the world, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, these proposals risk undermining GDPR principles by enabling indiscriminate data collection and sharing.
3. Ignoring Proportionality: Surveillance systems must be targeted, necessary, and proportionate to their objectives. Embedding policing into technological design and centralizing data far exceeds what is justified for fighting crime and terrorism.
4. Setting Dangerous Precedents: The failure to fully ban harmful surveillance technologies like facial recognition in public spaces sets a troubling precedent. It risks not only eroding privacy within the EU but also encouraging other nations to adopt similar measures, undermining global human rights.

A Call for Action: Safeguarding Our Privacy and Rights

As the EU pushes forward with these plans, the opposition from civil rights defenders grows louder. Policymakers must address the following key demands to prevent an erosion of fundamental rights:

• Implement Privacy by Design: All new technologies must prioritize privacy protections at the design stage, ensuring they are not co-opted for surveillance.
• Establish Robust Oversight: Any new policing tools or databases must be subject to democratic scrutiny, independent oversight, and clear legal frameworks to prevent misuse.
• Reassess Interoperability Plans: Cross-border police cooperation is important, but it must not come at the cost of individuals’ privacy, security, and dignity.
• Strengthen Export Controls: The EU must ban the export of surveillance tools that risk facilitating human rights abuses in authoritarian regimes.
• Prioritize Data Security: Centralized systems require state-of-the-art security measures to protect sensitive data from breaches or misuse.

The EU’s role as a leader in digital rights and privacy is now at stake. If these plans proceed without significant safeguards, Europe risks undermining its own foundational principles of freedom, security, and justice.

Conclusion: The Price of Surveillance-Driven Security

The EU’s surveillance plans may be presented as necessary for security, but they come at a steep cost to privacy, trust, and individual freedoms. Embedding surveillance into our technologies and centralizing police data pose far-reaching risks that cannot be ignored.

As privacy advocates, it is our responsibility to hold policymakers accountable and demand a security framework that upholds, rather than undermines, fundamental rights. Europe’s future must not be built on surveillance by design — but on privacy, democracy, and trust.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle that people, including Nassim Nicholas Taleb, love and treat as some form of wisdom, is actually just a justification for arbitrary acts.

In a given situation for which there's no sufficient knowledge, either A or B can be seen as risky or precautionary measures, there's no way to know except if you have sufficient knowledge.

---

Someone could reply saying, for example, that the known risk of A is tolerable to the unknown, probably magnitudes bigger, risk of B. Unless you know better or at least have a logical explanation for the risks of B (a thing "scientists" don't have because they notoriously dislike making logical claims), in which case you do know something and is not invoking the precautionary principle anymore, just relying on your logical reasoning – and that can be discussed and questioned by others, undermining your intended usage of the label "precautionary principle" as a magic cover for your actions.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

The Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal coined the term "veneer theory" in his book "Our Inner Ape" in 2005. The veneer theory posits that human moral behavior is merely a thin veneer over an inherently unpleasant nature. This viewpoint can be traced back to Thomas Henry Huxley, an anthropologist and biologist who was a contemporary of Darwin. However, de Waal criticized the idea because humanity is far more cooperative than predicted by simple anthropological or economic models. However, it is possible to question how thick this "civilizing veneer" really is.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some people discriminated against the unvaccinated , while others wished them a quick and painful death . In the United States, about 30 percent of those who voted for the Democratic Party wanted to take their children away . Professors wanted to imprison them . This was despite the fact that the vaccines did not prevent infection or reduce transmission very much (if at all).

There is an idea that evil actions often stem from ordinary people blindly following orders or societal norms.

The war between Israel and Hamas revealed a desire to collectively punish all residents of the Gaza Strip. For example, as many as 70 percent of Jewish Israelis say they want to ban social media posts expressing sympathy for civilians (""There are no civilians ."") On the other side of the conflict, there is a desire to punish Israeli citizens and Jews around the world for Israel's actions in the conflict, as shown by the storming of an airport in Russian Dagestan.

As a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the alienation of ethnic Russians has become fashionable. Even Swedish defense policy pundits now found it appropriate to dehumanize Russians by calling them "orcs" (evil and warlike creatures with sharp teeth taken from J.R.R. Tolkien's stories). Others wanted to deny all Russian citizens entry . Recently, the software project Linux has removed Russian programmers simply because they are Russian. Similar rhetoric can be found on the other side.

All three of the above examples constitute a form of collective punishment, which is contrary to both the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention . Yet few react.

The author Hannah Arendt coined the term "the banality of evil" when she studied Nazi war criminals. The term refers to the idea that evil actions often stem from ordinary people blindly following orders or societal norms without critical scrutiny. She argued that individual responsibility and critical thinking were of paramount importance.

In an iconic photo from the 1930s, a large crowd is shown with everyone doing the Hitler salute. Everyone except one. The man, believed to be August Landmesser , openly showed his refusal with crossed arms and a stern expression.

Imagine yourself in his shoes, standing among thousands of people who are raising their arms. Would you have the courage to stand still and quietly while everyone around you shouts their support? Or would you, like so many others, let yourself be swept along with the current and follow the crowd? Somewhere in there, you might have the answer to how thick this "civilizing veneer" really is.

---

Cover image: Picture of people giving a Nazi salute, with an unidentified person (possibly August Landmesser or Gustav Wegert) refusing to do so, Wikimedia Commons

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On "zk-rollups" applied to Bitcoin

ZK rollups make no sense in bitcoin because there is no "cheap calldata". all data is already ~~cheap~~ expensive calldata.

There could be an onchain zk verification that allows succinct signatures maybe, but never a rollup.

What happens is: you can have one UTXO that contains multiple balances on it and in each transaction you can recreate that UTXOs but alter its state using a zk to compress all internal transactions that took place.

The blockchain must be aware of all these new things, so it is in no way "L2".

And you must have an entity responsible for that UTXO and for conjuring the state changes and zk proofs.

But on bitcoin you also must keep the data necessary to rebuild the proofs somewhere else, I'm not sure how can the third party responsible for that UTXO ensure that happens.

I think such a construct is similar to a credit card corporation: one central party upon which everybody depends, zero interoperability with external entities, every vendor must have an account on each credit card company to be able to charge customers, therefore it is not clear that such a thing is more desirable than solutions that are truly open and interoperable like Lightning, which may have its defects but at least fosters a much better environment, bringing together different conflicting parties, custodians, anyone.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Splitpages

The simplest possible service: it splitted PDF pages in half.

Created specially to solve the problem of those scanned books that come with two pages side-by-side as if they were a single page and are much harder to read on Kindle because of that.

It required me to learn about Heroku Buildpacks though, and fork or contribute to a Heroku Buildpack that embedded a mupdf binary.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/splitpages
• https://splitpages.herokuapp.com/

@ fe32298e:20516265

Today I learned how to install NVapi to monitor my GPUs in Home Assistant.

NVApi is a lightweight API designed for monitoring NVIDIA GPU utilization and enabling automated power management. It provides real-time GPU metrics, supports integration with tools like Home Assistant, and offers flexible power management and PCIe link speed management based on workload and thermal conditions.

• GPU Utilization Monitoring: Utilization, memory usage, temperature, fan speed, and power consumption.
• Automated Power Limiting: Adjusts power limits dynamically based on temperature thresholds and total power caps, configurable per GPU or globally.
• Cross-GPU Coordination: Total power budget applies across multiple GPUs in the same system.
• PCIe Link Speed Management: Controls minimum and maximum PCIe link speeds with idle thresholds for power optimization.
• Home Assistant Integration: Uses the built-in RESTful platform and template sensors.

Getting the Data

sudo apt install golang-go git clone https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git cd NVapi go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 curl http://localhost:9999/gpu

Response for a single GPU: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 16, "power_limit_watts": 450, "memory_total_gb": 23.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.46, "memory_free_gb": 23.52, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 38, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Response for multiple GPUs: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 14, "power_limit_watts": 350, "memory_total_gb": 24, "memory_used_gb": 0.43, "memory_free_gb": 23.57, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 36, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" }, { "index": 1, "name": "NVIDIA RTX A4000", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 10, "power_limit_watts": 140, "memory_total_gb": 15.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.56, "memory_free_gb": 15.43, "memory_usage_percent": 3, "temperature": 41, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Start at Boot

Create /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service:

``` [Unit] Description=Run NVapi After=network.target

[Service] Type=simple Environment="GOPATH=/home/ansible/go" WorkingDirectory=/home/ansible/NVapi ExecStart=/usr/bin/go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 Restart=always User=ansible

Environment="GPU_TEMP_CHECK_INTERVAL=5"

Environment="GPU_TOTAL_POWER_CAP=400"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP=40"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP=70"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=135"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=120"

Environment="GPU_0_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=100"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP=45"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP=75"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=140"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=125"

Environment="GPU_1_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=110"

[Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target ```

Home Assistant

Add to Home Assistant configuration.yaml and restart HA (completely).

For a single GPU, this works: ``` sensor: - platform: rest name: MYPC GPU Information resource: http://mypc:9999 method: GET headers: Content-Type: application/json value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature scan_interval: 1 # seconds

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "°C" ```

For multiple GPUs: ``` rest: scan_interval: 1 resource: http://mypc:9999 sensor: - name: "MYPC GPU0 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.0" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature - name: "MYPC GPU1 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[1].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.1" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_1_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

```

Basic entity card: type: entities entities: - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_gpu secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_memory secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power_limit secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_temperature secondary_info: last-updated

Ansible Role

```

• name: install go become: true package: name: golang-go state: present

• name: git clone git: repo: "https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git" dest: "/home/ansible/NVapi" update: yes force: true

go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1

• name: install systemd service become: true copy: src: nvapi.service dest: /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service

• name: Reload systemd daemons, enable, and restart nvapi become: true systemd: name: nvapi daemon_reload: yes enabled: yes state: restarted ```

@ 6f6b50bb:a848e5a1

Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

• Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

• Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!

Tradotto da:\ https://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.htmlhttps://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.html

@ d8c59f3c:984e482e

sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/459408

@ eac63075:b4988b48

BlueSky, a social network built on the decentralized AT Protocol (Authenticated Transfer Protocol), is revolutionizing content moderation by empowering users and communities to manage their own experiences. Unlike traditional platforms that centralize control, BlueSky adopts a modular and customizable approach, balancing freedom of expression with safety.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/mtp0RxPeuBpCozcSgfct

The Jesse Singal Case and the Community’s Response

Recently, the account @jessesingal.com was accused of publishing content considered homophobic and transphobic. Although some users questioned whether these posts violated BlueSky’s Terms of Service, the platform chose not to ban the account. Instead, it relied on community tools to limit the reach of these posts.

Individual users blocked the account and subscribed to community-managed block lists, significantly reducing the visibility of Jesse Singal’s content. This decentralized approach demonstrated the effectiveness of a model in which the community regulates content without centralized intervention.

BlueSky’s Five Layers of Moderation

BlueSky implements a multi-layered moderation system, offering users tools to customize their experiences practically and efficiently:

1. Personal Blocking and Muting\ Users can block or mute unwanted accounts, individually adjusting the content they wish to see.

2. Community Block Lists\ By subscribing to block lists created by the community, users can share common moderation criteria, optimizing content filtering.

3. Curated Feeds\ Subscribing to personalized feeds allows users to consume content filtered by curators or algorithms, creating a safer and more tailored experience.

4. Account Removal on the Personal Data Server (PDS)\ In extreme cases, servers can directly delete accounts from their databases, preventing them from publishing or accessing the network.

5. Ozone: Advanced Moderation Tool\ Ozone is an integrated tool that enables advanced moderation strategies, combining various resources for greater efficiency.

BlueSky’s Moderation Architecture

Moderation on BlueSky is based on an open labeling system. This architecture allows anyone to assign labels to content or accounts, such as “spam” or “NSFW” (not safe for work). These labels can be automatically generated by third-party services or manually applied by curators and administrators, offering flexibility for communities and individuals to customize their experiences.

The Role of the Community in Content Regulation

In decentralized platforms like BlueSky, the community plays a central role in self-regulation, minimizing reliance on a centralized authority to moderate content. This decentralization distributes responsibilities and reduces the risks of institutional bias, often seen in centralized companies that may reflect specific interests at the expense of plurality.

Centralized platforms often censor or promote content based on corporate agendas, compromising user trust. BlueSky’s model prioritizes autonomy, allowing the community itself to determine what is relevant or acceptable.

With 25 million users registered within weeks, BlueSky remains committed to its mission of regulating not freedom of expression, but the reach of certain publications. Tools like block lists, curated feeds, and Ozone are tangible examples of how the platform is building a decentralized and inclusive ecosystem.

Challenges and Opportunities of Decentralization

Despite its merits, decentralization presents challenges. Educating users about available tools and protecting vulnerable communities from harmful content are complex tasks, especially in a rapidly growing environment.

On the other hand, the decentralized model offers significant advantages. It enhances transparency, fosters trust among users, and reduces reliance on a central authority. On BlueSky, users shape their own experiences, ensuring greater freedom without sacrificing safety.

Conclusion

BlueSky is paving the way for a new era in social networks with a decentralized moderation model that empowers users and promotes shared responsibility. Aligned with principles of freedom and inclusion, BlueSky combines advanced technology and community collaboration to create a safer, more democratic, and adaptable space.

Although still in its early stages, BlueSky offers a promising model for the future of social networks, where reach—not freedom of expression—is the true focus of regulation.

@ 6e24af77:b3f1350b

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer nec odio. Praesent libero. Sed cursus ante dapibus diam. Sed nisi. Nulla quis sem at nibh elementum imperdiet. Duis sagittis ipsum. Praesent mauris. Fusce nec tellus sed augue semper porta. Mauris massa. Vestibulum lacinia arcu eget nulla. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Curabitur sodales ligula in libero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer nec odio. Praesent libero. Sed cursus ante dapibus diam. Sed nisi. Nulla quis sem at nibh elementum imperdiet.

Duis sagittis ipsum. Praesent mauris. Fusce nec tellus sed augue semper porta. Mauris massa. Vestibulum lacinia arcu eget nulla. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Curabitur sodales ligula in libero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer nec odio. Praesent libero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer posuere erat a ante.

https://youtu.be/HGwWNFV5CE8

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Imagine sending a private message to a friend, only to learn that authorities could be scanning its contents without your knowledge. This isn't a scene from a dystopian novel but a potential reality under the European Union's proposed "Chat Control" measures. Aimed at combating serious crimes like child exploitation and terrorism, these proposals could significantly impact the privacy of everyday internet users. As encrypted messaging services become the norm for personal and professional communication, understanding Chat Control is essential. This article delves into what Chat Control entails, why it's being considered, and how it could affect your right to private communication.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/coOFsst7r7mO1EP1kSzV

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0IZ6kMExfxFm4FHg5DAWT8?si=e139033865e045de

Sections:

• Introduction
• What Is Chat Control?
• Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?
• The Privacy Concerns and Risks
• The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors
• Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe
• Possible Consequences for Messaging Services
• What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control
• Conclusion

---

What Is Chat Control?

"Chat Control" refers to a set of proposed measures by the European Union aimed at monitoring and scanning private communications on messaging platforms. The primary goal is to detect and prevent the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and to combat terrorism. While the intention is to enhance security and protect vulnerable populations, these proposals have raised significant privacy concerns.

At its core, Chat Control would require messaging services to implement automated scanning technologies that can analyze the content of messages—even those that are end-to-end encrypted. This means that the private messages you send to friends, family, or colleagues could be subject to inspection by algorithms designed to detect prohibited content.

Origins of the Proposal

The initiative for Chat Control emerged from the EU's desire to strengthen its digital security infrastructure. High-profile cases of online abuse and the use of encrypted platforms by criminal organizations have prompted lawmakers to consider more invasive surveillance tactics. The European Commission has been exploring legislation that would make it mandatory for service providers to monitor communications on their platforms.

How Messaging Services Work

Most modern messaging apps, like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others), use end-to-end encryption (E2EE). This encryption ensures that only the sender and the recipient can read the messages being exchanged. Not even the service providers can access the content. This level of security is crucial for maintaining privacy in digital communications, protecting users from hackers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors.

Key Elements of Chat Control

• Automated Content Scanning: Service providers would use algorithms to scan messages for illegal content.
• Circumvention of Encryption: To scan encrypted messages, providers might need to alter their encryption methods, potentially weakening security.
• Mandatory Reporting: If illegal content is detected, providers would be required to report it to authorities.
• Broad Applicability: The measures could apply to all messaging services operating within the EU, affecting both European companies and international platforms.

Why It Matters

Understanding Chat Control is essential because it represents a significant shift in how digital privacy is handled. While combating illegal activities online is crucial, the methods proposed could set a precedent for mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. Everyday users who rely on encrypted messaging for personal and professional communication might find their conversations are no longer as private as they once thought.

---

Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?

The European Union's push for Chat Control stems from a pressing concern to protect its citizens, particularly children, from online exploitation and criminal activities. With the digital landscape becoming increasingly integral to daily life, the EU aims to strengthen its ability to combat serious crimes facilitated through online platforms.

Protecting Children and Preventing Crime

One of the primary motivations behind Chat Control is the prevention of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) circulating on the internet. Law enforcement agencies have reported a significant increase in the sharing of illegal content through private messaging services. By implementing Chat Control, the EU believes it can more effectively identify and stop perpetrators, rescue victims, and deter future crimes.

Terrorism is another critical concern. Encrypted messaging apps can be used by terrorist groups to plan and coordinate attacks without detection. The EU argues that accessing these communications could be vital in preventing such threats and ensuring public safety.

Legal Context and Legislative Drivers

The push for Chat Control is rooted in several legislative initiatives:

• ePrivacy Directive: This directive regulates the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in electronic communications. The EU is considering amendments that would allow for the scanning of private messages under specific circumstances.

• Temporary Derogation: In 2021, the EU adopted a temporary regulation permitting voluntary detection of CSAM by communication services. The current proposals aim to make such measures mandatory and more comprehensive.

• Regulation Proposals: The European Commission has proposed regulations that would require service providers to detect, report, and remove illegal content proactively. This would include the use of technologies to scan private communications.

Balancing Security and Privacy

EU officials argue that the proposed measures are a necessary response to evolving digital threats. They emphasize the importance of staying ahead of criminals who exploit technology to harm others. By implementing Chat Control, they believe law enforcement can be more effective without entirely dismantling privacy protections.

However, the EU also acknowledges the need to balance security with fundamental rights. The proposals include provisions intended to limit the scope of surveillance, such as:

• Targeted Scanning: Focusing on specific threats rather than broad, indiscriminate monitoring.

• Judicial Oversight: Requiring court orders or oversight for accessing private communications.

• Data Protection Safeguards: Implementing measures to ensure that data collected is handled securely and deleted when no longer needed.

The Urgency Behind the Push

High-profile cases of online abuse and terrorism have heightened the sense of urgency among EU policymakers. Reports of increasing online grooming and the widespread distribution of illegal content have prompted calls for immediate action. The EU posits that without measures like Chat Control, these problems will continue to escalate unchecked.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite the stated intentions, the push for Chat Control has been met with significant criticism. Opponents argue that the measures could be ineffective against savvy criminals who can find alternative ways to communicate. There is also concern that such surveillance could be misused or extended beyond its original purpose.

---

The Privacy Concerns and Risks

While the intentions behind Chat Control focus on enhancing security and protecting vulnerable groups, the proposed measures raise significant privacy concerns. Critics argue that implementing such surveillance could infringe on fundamental rights and set a dangerous precedent for mass monitoring of private communications.

Infringement on Privacy Rights

At the heart of the debate is the right to privacy. By scanning private messages, even with automated tools, the confidentiality of personal communications is compromised. Users may no longer feel secure sharing sensitive information, fearing that their messages could be intercepted or misinterpreted by algorithms.

Erosion of End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a cornerstone of digital security, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can read the messages exchanged. Chat Control could necessitate the introduction of "backdoors" or weaken encryption protocols, making it easier for unauthorized parties to access private data. This not only affects individual privacy but also exposes communications to potential cyber threats.

Concerns from Privacy Advocates

Organizations like Signal and Tutanota, which offer encrypted messaging services, have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control. They warn that undermining encryption could have far-reaching consequences:

• Security Risks: Weakening encryption makes systems more vulnerable to hacking, espionage, and cybercrime.
• Global Implications: Changes in EU regulations could influence policies worldwide, leading to a broader erosion of digital privacy.
• Ineffectiveness Against Crime: Determined criminals might resort to other, less detectable means of communication, rendering the measures ineffective while still compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Potential for Government Overreach

There is a fear that Chat Control could lead to increased surveillance beyond its original scope. Once the infrastructure for scanning private messages is in place, it could be repurposed or expanded to monitor other types of content, stifling free expression and dissent.

Real-World Implications for Users

• False Positives: Automated scanning technologies are not infallible and could mistakenly flag innocent content, leading to unwarranted scrutiny or legal consequences for users.
• Chilling Effect: Knowing that messages could be monitored might discourage people from expressing themselves freely, impacting personal relationships and societal discourse.
• Data Misuse: Collected data could be vulnerable to leaks or misuse, compromising personal and sensitive information.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Privacy advocates also highlight potential conflicts with existing laws and ethical standards:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements protect the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
• Questionable Effectiveness: The ethical justification for such invasive measures is challenged if they do not significantly improve safety or if they disproportionately impact innocent users.

Opposition from Member States and Organizations

Countries like Germany and organizations such as the European Digital Rights (EDRi) have expressed opposition to Chat Control. They emphasize the need to protect digital privacy and caution against hasty legislation that could have unintended consequences.

---

The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors

The discussion around Chat Control inevitably leads to a complex technical debate centered on encryption and the potential introduction of backdoors into secure communication systems. Understanding these concepts is crucial to grasping the full implications of the proposed measures.

What Is End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)?

End-to-end encryption is a method of secure communication that prevents third parties from accessing data while it's transferred from one end system to another. In simpler terms, only the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Even the service providers operating the messaging platforms cannot decrypt the content.

• Security Assurance: E2EE ensures that sensitive information—be it personal messages, financial details, or confidential business communications—remains private.
• Widespread Use: Popular messaging apps like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others) rely on E2EE to protect user data.

How Chat Control Affects Encryption

Implementing Chat Control as proposed would require messaging services to scan the content of messages for illegal material. To do this on encrypted platforms, providers might have to:

• Introduce Backdoors: Create a means for third parties (including the service provider or authorities) to access encrypted messages.
• Client-Side Scanning: Install software on users' devices that scans messages before they are encrypted and sent, effectively bypassing E2EE.

The Risks of Weakening Encryption

1. Compromised Security for All Users

Introducing backdoors or client-side scanning tools can create vulnerabilities:

• Exploitable Gaps: If a backdoor exists, malicious actors might find and exploit it, leading to data breaches.
• Universal Impact: Weakening encryption doesn't just affect targeted individuals; it potentially exposes all users to increased risk.

2. Undermining Trust in Digital Services

• User Confidence: Knowing that private communications could be accessed might deter people from using digital services or push them toward unregulated platforms.
• Business Implications: Companies relying on secure communications might face increased risks, affecting economic activities.

3. Ineffectiveness Against Skilled Adversaries

• Alternative Methods: Criminals might shift to other encrypted channels or develop new ways to avoid detection.
• False Sense of Security: Weakening encryption could give the impression of increased safety while adversaries adapt and continue their activities undetected.

Signal’s Response and Stance

Signal, a leading encrypted messaging service, has been vocal in its opposition to the EU's proposals:

• Refusal to Weaken Encryption: Signal's CEO Meredith Whittaker has stated that the company would rather cease operations in the EU than compromise its encryption standards.
• Advocacy for Privacy: Signal emphasizes that strong encryption is essential for protecting human rights and freedoms in the digital age.

Understanding Backdoors

A "backdoor" in encryption is an intentional weakness inserted into a system to allow authorized access to encrypted data. While intended for legitimate use by authorities, backdoors pose several problems:

• Security Vulnerabilities: They can be discovered and exploited by unauthorized parties, including hackers and foreign governments.
• Ethical Concerns: The existence of backdoors raises questions about consent and the extent to which governments should be able to access private communications.

The Slippery Slope Argument

Privacy advocates warn that introducing backdoors or mandatory scanning sets a precedent:

• Expanded Surveillance: Once in place, these measures could be extended to monitor other types of content beyond the original scope.
• Erosion of Rights: Gradual acceptance of surveillance can lead to a significant reduction in personal freedoms over time.

Potential Technological Alternatives

Some suggest that it's possible to fight illegal content without undermining encryption:

• Metadata Analysis: Focusing on patterns of communication rather than content.
• Enhanced Reporting Mechanisms: Encouraging users to report illegal content voluntarily.
• Investing in Law Enforcement Capabilities: Strengthening traditional investigative methods without compromising digital security.

The technical community largely agrees that weakening encryption is not the solution:

• Consensus on Security: Strong encryption is essential for the safety and privacy of all internet users.
• Call for Dialogue: Technologists and privacy experts advocate for collaborative approaches that address security concerns without sacrificing fundamental rights.

---

Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe

The proposal for Chat Control has ignited a heated debate across Europe and beyond, with various stakeholders weighing in on the potential implications for privacy, security, and fundamental rights. The reactions are mixed, reflecting differing national perspectives, political priorities, and societal values.

Support for Chat Control

Some EU member states and officials support the initiative, emphasizing the need for robust measures to combat online crime and protect citizens, especially children. They argue that:

• Enhanced Security: Mandatory scanning can help law enforcement agencies detect and prevent serious crimes.
• Responsibility of Service Providers: Companies offering communication services should play an active role in preventing their platforms from being used for illegal activities.
• Public Safety Priorities: The protection of vulnerable populations justifies the implementation of such measures, even if it means compromising some aspects of privacy.

Opposition within the EU

Several countries and organizations have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control, citing concerns over privacy rights and the potential for government overreach.

Germany

• Stance: Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed measures.
• Reasons:
• Constitutional Concerns: The German government argues that Chat Control could violate constitutional protections of privacy and confidentiality of communications.
• Security Risks: Weakening encryption is seen as a threat to cybersecurity.
• Legal Challenges: Potential conflicts with national laws protecting personal data and communication secrecy.

Netherlands

• Recent Developments: The Dutch government decided against supporting Chat Control, emphasizing the importance of encryption for security and privacy.
• Arguments:
• Effectiveness Doubts: Skepticism about the actual effectiveness of the measures in combating crime.
• Negative Impact on Privacy: Concerns about mass surveillance and the infringement of citizens' rights.

Table reference: Patrick Breyer - Chat Control in 23 September 2024

Privacy Advocacy Groups

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

• Role: A network of civil and human rights organizations working to defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment.
• Position:
• Strong Opposition: EDRi argues that Chat Control is incompatible with fundamental rights.
• Awareness Campaigns: Engaging in public campaigns to inform citizens about the potential risks.
• Policy Engagement: Lobbying policymakers to consider alternative approaches that respect privacy.

Politicians and Activists

Patrick Breyer

• Background: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, representing the Pirate Party.
• Actions:
• Advocacy: Actively campaigning against Chat Control through speeches, articles, and legislative efforts.
• Public Outreach: Using social media and public events to raise awareness.
• Legal Expertise: Highlighting the legal inconsistencies and potential violations of EU law.

Global Reactions

International Organizations

• Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: These organizations have expressed concerns about the implications for human rights, urging the EU to reconsider.

Technology Companies

• Global Tech Firms: Companies like Apple and Microsoft are monitoring the situation, as EU regulations could affect their operations and user trust.
• Industry Associations: Groups representing tech companies have issued statements highlighting the risks to innovation and competitiveness.

The Broader Debate

The controversy over Chat Control reflects a broader struggle between security interests and privacy rights in the digital age. Key points in the debate include:

• Legal Precedents: How the EU's decision might influence laws and regulations in other countries.
• Digital Sovereignty: The desire of nations to control digital spaces within their borders.
• Civil Liberties: The importance of protecting freedoms in the face of technological advancements.

Public Opinion

• Diverse Views: Surveys and public forums show a range of opinions, with some citizens prioritizing security and others valuing privacy above all.
• Awareness Levels: Many people are still unaware of the potential changes, highlighting the need for public education on the issue.

The EU is at a crossroads, facing the challenge of addressing legitimate security concerns without undermining the fundamental rights that are central to its values. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of digital privacy and the balance between security and freedom in society.

---

Possible Consequences for Messaging Services

The implementation of Chat Control could have significant implications for messaging services operating within the European Union. Both large platforms and smaller providers might need to adapt their technologies and policies to comply with the new regulations, potentially altering the landscape of digital communication.

Impact on Encrypted Messaging Services

Signal and Similar Platforms

• Compliance Challenges: Encrypted messaging services like Signal rely on end-to-end encryption to secure user communications. Complying with Chat Control could force them to weaken their encryption protocols or implement client-side scanning, conflicting with their core privacy principles.

• Operational Decisions: Some platforms may choose to limit their services in the EU or cease operations altogether rather than compromise on encryption. Signal, for instance, has indicated that it would prefer to withdraw from European markets than undermine its security features.

Potential Blocking or Limiting of Services

• Regulatory Enforcement: Messaging services that do not comply with Chat Control regulations could face fines, legal action, or even be blocked within the EU.

• Access Restrictions: Users in Europe might find certain services unavailable or limited in functionality if providers decide not to meet the regulatory requirements.

Effects on Smaller Providers

• Resource Constraints: Smaller messaging services and startups may lack the resources to implement the required scanning technologies, leading to increased operational costs or forcing them out of the market.

• Innovation Stifling: The added regulatory burden could deter new entrants, reducing competition and innovation in the messaging service sector.

User Experience and Trust

• Privacy Concerns: Users may lose trust in messaging platforms if they know their communications are subject to scanning, leading to a decline in user engagement.

• Migration to Unregulated Platforms: There is a risk that users might shift to less secure or unregulated services, including those operated outside the EU or on the dark web, potentially exposing them to greater risks.

Technical and Security Implications

• Increased Vulnerabilities: Modifying encryption protocols to comply with Chat Control could introduce security flaws, making platforms more susceptible to hacking and data breaches.

• Global Security Risks: Changes made to accommodate EU regulations might affect the global user base of these services, extending security risks beyond European borders.

Impact on Businesses and Professional Communications

• Confidentiality Issues: Businesses that rely on secure messaging for sensitive communications may face challenges in ensuring confidentiality, affecting sectors like finance, healthcare, and legal services.

• Compliance Complexity: Companies operating internationally will need to navigate a complex landscape of differing regulations, increasing administrative burdens.

Economic Consequences

• Market Fragmentation: Divergent regulations could lead to a fragmented market, with different versions of services for different regions.

• Loss of Revenue: Messaging services might experience reduced revenue due to decreased user trust and engagement or the costs associated with compliance.

Responses from Service Providers

• Legal Challenges: Companies might pursue legal action against the regulations, citing conflicts with privacy laws and user rights.

• Policy Advocacy: Service providers may increase lobbying efforts to influence policy decisions and promote alternatives to Chat Control.

Possible Adaptations

• Technological Innovation: Some providers might invest in developing new technologies that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption, though the feasibility remains uncertain.

• Transparency Measures: To maintain user trust, companies might enhance transparency about how data is handled and what measures are in place to protect privacy.

The potential consequences of Chat Control for messaging services are profound, affecting not only the companies that provide these services but also the users who rely on them daily. The balance between complying with legal requirements and maintaining user privacy and security presents a significant challenge that could reshape the digital communication landscape.

---

What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control

The future of Chat Control remains uncertain as the debate continues among EU member states, policymakers, technology companies, and civil society organizations. Several factors will influence the outcome of this contentious proposal, each carrying significant implications for digital privacy, security, and the regulatory environment within the European Union.

Current Status of Legislation

• Ongoing Negotiations: The proposed Chat Control measures are still under discussion within the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Amendments and revisions are being considered in response to the feedback from various stakeholders.

• Timeline: While there is no fixed date for the final decision, the EU aims to reach a consensus to implement effective measures against online crime without undue delay.

Key Influencing Factors

1. Legal Challenges and Compliance with EU Law

• Fundamental Rights Assessment: The proposals must be evaluated against the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring that any measures comply with rights to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.

• Court Scrutiny: Potential legal challenges could arise, leading to scrutiny by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which may impact the feasibility and legality of Chat Control.

2. Technological Feasibility

• Development of Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Research into methods that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption is ongoing. Advances in this area could provide alternative solutions acceptable to both privacy advocates and security agencies.

• Implementation Challenges: The practical aspects of deploying scanning technologies across various platforms and services remain complex, and technical hurdles could delay or alter the proposed measures.

3. Political Dynamics

• Member State Positions: The differing stances of EU countries, such as Germany's opposition, play a significant role in shaping the final outcome. Consensus among member states is crucial for adopting EU-wide regulations.

• Public Opinion and Advocacy: Growing awareness and activism around digital privacy can influence policymakers. Public campaigns and lobbying efforts may sway decisions in favor of stronger privacy protections.

4. Industry Responses

• Negotiations with Service Providers: Ongoing dialogues between EU authorities and technology companies may lead to compromises or collaborative efforts to address concerns without fully implementing Chat Control as initially proposed.

• Potential for Self-Regulation: Messaging services might propose self-regulatory measures to combat illegal content, aiming to demonstrate effectiveness without the need for mandatory scanning.

Possible Scenarios

Optimistic Outcome:

• Balanced Regulation: A revised proposal emerges that effectively addresses security concerns while upholding strong encryption and privacy rights, possibly through innovative technologies or targeted measures with robust oversight.

Pessimistic Outcome:

• Adoption of Strict Measures: Chat Control is implemented as initially proposed, leading to weakened encryption, reduced privacy, and potential withdrawal of services like Signal from the EU market.

Middle Ground:

• Incremental Implementation: Partial measures are adopted, focusing on voluntary cooperation with service providers and emphasizing transparency and user consent, with ongoing evaluations to assess effectiveness and impact.

How to Stay Informed and Protect Your Privacy

• Follow Reputable Sources: Keep up with news from reliable outlets, official EU communications, and statements from privacy organizations to stay informed about developments.

• Engage in the Dialogue: Participate in public consultations, sign petitions, or contact representatives to express your views on Chat Control and digital privacy.

• Utilize Secure Practices: Regardless of legislative outcomes, adopting good digital hygiene—such as using strong passwords and being cautious with personal information—can enhance your online security.

The Global Perspective

• International Implications: The EU's decision may influence global policies on encryption and surveillance, setting precedents that other countries might follow or react against.

• Collaboration Opportunities: International cooperation on developing solutions that protect both security and privacy could emerge, fostering a more unified approach to addressing online threats.

Looking Ahead

The future of Chat Control is a critical issue that underscores the challenges of governing in the digital age. Balancing the need for security with the protection of fundamental rights is a complex task that requires careful consideration, open dialogue, and collaboration among all stakeholders.

As the situation evolves, staying informed and engaged is essential. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the digital landscape for years to come, affecting how we communicate, conduct business, and exercise our rights in an increasingly connected world.

---

Conclusion

The debate over Chat Control highlights a fundamental challenge in our increasingly digital world: how to protect society from genuine threats without eroding the very rights and freedoms that define it. While the intention to safeguard children and prevent crime is undeniably important, the means of achieving this through intrusive surveillance measures raise critical concerns.

Privacy is not just a personal preference but a cornerstone of democratic societies. End-to-end encryption has become an essential tool for ensuring that our personal conversations, professional communications, and sensitive data remain secure from unwanted intrusion. Weakening these protections could expose individuals and organizations to risks that far outweigh the proposed benefits.

The potential consequences of implementing Chat Control are far-reaching:

• Erosion of Trust: Users may lose confidence in digital platforms, impacting how we communicate and conduct business online.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Introducing backdoors or weakening encryption can make systems more susceptible to cyberattacks.
• Stifling Innovation: Regulatory burdens may hinder technological advancement and competitiveness in the tech industry.
• Global Implications: The EU's decisions could set precedents that influence digital policies worldwide, for better or worse.

As citizens, it's crucial to stay informed about these developments. Engage in conversations, reach out to your representatives, and advocate for solutions that respect both security needs and fundamental rights. Technology and policy can evolve together to address challenges without compromising core values.

The future of Chat Control is not yet decided, and public input can make a significant difference. By promoting open dialogue, supporting privacy-preserving innovations, and emphasizing the importance of human rights in legislation, we can work towards a digital landscape that is both safe and free.

In a world where digital communication is integral to daily life, striking the right balance between security and privacy is more important than ever. The choices made today will shape the digital environment for generations to come, determining not just how we communicate, but how we live and interact in an interconnected world.

---

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it has provided you with a clear understanding of Chat Control and its potential impact on your privacy and digital rights. Stay informed, stay engaged, and let's work together towards a secure and open digital future.

Read more:

• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/new-eu-push-for-chat-control-will-messenger-services-be-blocked-in-europe/
• https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-decision-puts-brakes-on-chat-control/
• https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/ndss-keynote.pdf
• https://tuta.com/blog/germany-stop-chat-control
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/signal-president-slams-revised-eu-encryption-proposal
• https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Christmas season hasn't actually started, yet, in Roman #Catholic Germany. We're in Advent until the evening of the 24th of December, at which point Christmas begins (with the Nativity, at Vespers), and continues on for 40 days until Mariä Lichtmess (Presentation of Christ in the temple) on February 2nd.

It's 40 days because that's how long the post-partum isolation is, before women were allowed back into the temple (after a ritual cleansing).

That is the day when we put away all of the Christmas decorations and bless the candles, for the next year. (Hence, the British name "Candlemas".) It used to also be when household staff would get paid their cash wages and could change employer. And it is the day precisely in the middle of winter.

Between Christmas Eve and Candlemas are many celebrations, concluding with the Twelfth Night called Epiphany or Theophany. This is the day some Orthodox celebrate Christ's baptism, so traditions rotate around blessing of waters.

The Monday after Epiphany was the start of the farming season, in England, so that Sunday all of the ploughs were blessed, but the practice has largely died out.

Our local tradition is for the altar servers to dress as the wise men and go door-to-door, carrying their star and looking for the Baby Jesus, who is rumored to be lying in a manger.

They collect cash gifts and chocolates, along the way, and leave the generous their powerful blessing, written over the door. The famous 20 * C + M + B * 25 blessing means "Christus mansionem benedicat" (Christ, bless this house), or "Caspar, Melchior, Balthasar" (the names of the three kings), depending upon who you ask.

They offer the cash to the Baby Jesus (once they find him in the church's Nativity scene), but eat the sweets, themselves. It is one of the biggest donation-collections in the world, called the "Sternsinger" (star singers). The money goes from the German children, to help children elsewhere, and they collect around €45 million in cash and coins, every year.

As an interesting aside:

The American "groundhog day", derives from one of the old farmers' sayings about Candlemas, brought over by the Pennsylvania Dutch. It says, that if the badger comes out of his hole and sees his shadow, then it'll remain cold for 4 more weeks. When they moved to the USA, they didn't have any badgers around, so they switched to groundhogs, as they also hibernate in winter.

@ a10260a2:caa23e3e

Alby Hub is configurable with several different backends. Although setting up with Cashu is considered experimental, it’s a good option to have if you don’t want to run a Lightning node.

This post will give a quick overview of the steps to connect your Alby Hub with a Cashu mint.

Before you get started, you’re going to want to have Alby Hub installed already. There are many options for this as well — Linux, StartOS, and Umbrel to name a few. You can even have Alby host it for you in their cloud.

I just happen to have a Linux machine free so I went that route — the installation script made it super easy.

After the install is complete, navigating to localhost:8080 brings up this page.

1. Select “Advanced Setup”

1. Select “Create Wallet with Custom Node”

1. Select “Cashu Mint”

1. Paste the URL of the mint you’d like to use. You can use the default one provided or click on “Find a mint” to search for others.

1. (Optional) Connect your Alby account by requesting an authorization code. After clicking “Connect now,” a new window will open and the code displayed after signing in.

Boom. You’re all done.

Now you can use your Alby Lightning address to receive your first sats!

NOTE: Although the sats do make it to the wallet, the “Waiting for payment” animation seems to wait indefinitely and there’s no record in transaction history.

This seems to be a Cashu-related issue that has something to do with the preimage. An issue has been opened on GitHub if you’re curious.

Other that that, sending and receiving works like a charm.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/707673

@ c4f5e7a7:8856cac7

Best viewed on Habla, YakiHonne or Highlighter.

TL;DR

This article explores the links between public, community-driven data sources (such as OpenStreetMap) and private, cryptographically-owned data found on networks such as Nostr.

The following concepts are explored:

1. Attestations: Users signalling to their social graph that they believe something to be true by publishing Attestations. These social proofs act as a decentralised verification system that leverages your web-of-trust.
2. Proof of Place: An oracle-based system where physical letters are sent to real-world locations, confirming the corresponding digital ownership via cryptographic proofs. This binds physical locations in meatspace with their digital representations in the Nostrverse.
3. Check-ins: Foursquare-style check-ins that can be verified using attestations from place owners, ensuring authenticity. This approach uses web-of-trust to validate check-ins and location ownership over time.

The goal is to leverage cryptographic ownership where necessary while preserving the open, collaborative nature of public data systems.

Open Data in a public commons has a place and should not be thrown out with the Web 2.0 bathwater.

Cognitive Dissonance

Ever since discovering Nostr in August of 2022 I've been grappling with how BTC Map - a project that helps bitcoiners find places to spend sats - should most appropriately use this new protocol.

I am assuming, dear reader, that you are somewhat familiar with Nostr - a relatively new protocol for decentralised identity and communication. If you don’t know your nsec from your npub, please take some time to read these excellent posts: Nostr is Identity for the Internet and The Power of Nostr by @max and @lyn, respectively. Nostr is so much more than a short-form social media replacement.

The social features (check-ins, reviews, etc.) that Nostr unlocks for BTC Map are clear and exciting - all your silos are indeed broken - however, something fundamental has been bothering me for a while and I think it comes down to data ownership.

For those unfamiliar, BTC Map uses OpenStreetMap (OSM) as its main geographic database. OSM is centred on the concept of a commons of objectively verifiable data that is maintained by a global community of volunteer editors; a Wikipedia for maps. There is no data ownership; the data is free (as in freedom) and anyone can edit anything. It is the data equivalent of FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) - FOSD if you will, but more commonly referred to as Open Data.

In contrast, Notes and Other Stuff on Nostr (Places in this cartographic context) are explicitly owned by the controller of the private key. These notes are free to propagate, but they are owned.

How do we reconcile the decentralised nature of Nostr, where data is cryptographically owned by individuals, with the community-managed data commons of OpenStreetMap, where no one owns the data?

Self-sovereign Identity

Before I address this coexistence question, I want to talk a little about identity as it pertains to ownership. If something is to be owned, it has to be owned by someone or something - an identity.

All identities that are not self-sovereign are, by definition, leased to you by a 3rd party. You rent your Facebook identity from Meta in exchange for your data. You rent your web domain from your DNS provider in exchange for your money.

Taken to the extreme, you rent your passport from your Government in exchange for your compliance. You are you at the pleasure of others. Where Bitcoin separates money from the state; Nostr separates identity from the state.

Or, as @nvk said recently: "Don't build your house on someone else's land.".

https://i.nostr.build/xpcCSkDg3uVw0yku.png

While we’ve had the tools for self-sovereign digital identity for decades (think PGP keys or WebAuthN), we haven't had the necessary social use cases nor the corresponding social graph to elevate these identities to the mainstream. Nostr fixes this.

Nostr is PGP for the masses and will take cryptographic identities mainstream.

Full NOSTARD?

Returning to the coexistence question: the data on OpenStreetMap isn’t directly owned by anyone, even though the physical entities the data represents might be privately owned. OSM is a data commons.

We can objectively agree on the location of a tree or a fire hydrant without needing permission to observe and record it. Sure, you could place a tree ‘on Nostr’, but why should you? Just because something can be ‘on Nostr’ doesn’t mean it should be.

https://i.nostr.build/s3So2JVAqoY4E1dI.png

There might be a dystopian future where we can't agree on what a tree is nor where it's located, but I hope we never get there. It's at this point we'll need a Wikifreedia variant of OpenStreetMap.

While integrating Nostr identities into OpenStreetMap would be valuable, the current OSM infrastructure, tools, and community already provide substantial benefits in managing this data commons without needing to go NOSTR-native - there's no need to go Full NOSTARD. H/T to @princeySOV for the original meme.

https://i.nostr.build/ot9jtM5cZtDHNKWc.png

So, how do we appropriately blend cryptographically owned data with the commons?

If a location is owned in meatspace and it's useful to signal that ownership, it should also be owned in cyberspace. Our efforts should therefore focus on entities like businesses, while allowing the commons to manage public data for as long as it can successfully mitigate the tragedy of the commons.

The remainder of this article explores how we can:

1. Verify ownership of a physical place in the real world;
2. Link that ownership to the corresponding digital place in cyberspace.

As a side note, I don't see private key custodianship - or, even worse, permissioned use of Places signed by another identity's key - as any more viable than the rented identities of Web 2.0.

And as we all know, the Second Law of Infodynamics (no citation!) states that:

"The total amount of sensitive information leaked will always increase over time."

This especially holds true if that data is centralised.

Not your keys, not your notes. Not your keys, not your identity.

Places and Web-of-Trust

@Arkinox has been leading the charge on the Places NIP, introducing Nostr notes (kind 37515) that represent physical locations. The draft is well-crafted, with bonus points for linking back to OSM (and other location repositories) via NIP-73 - External Content IDs (championed by @oscar of @fountain).

However, as Nostr is permissionless, authenticity poses a challenge. Just because someone claims to own a physical location on the Internet doesn’t necessarily mean they have ownership or control of that location in the real world.

Ultimately, this problem can only be solved in a decentralised way by using Web-of-Trust - using your social graph and the perspectives of trusted peers to inform your own perspective. In the context of Places, this requires your network to form a view on which digital identity (public key / npub) is truly the owner of a physical place like your local coffee shop.

This requires users to:

1. Verify the owner of a Place in cyberspace is the owner of a place in meatspace.
2. Signal this verification to their social graph.

Let's look at the latter idea first with the concept of Attestations ...

Attestations

A way to signal to your social graph that you believe something to be true (or false for that matter) would be by publishing an Attestation note. An Attestation note would signify to your social graph that you think something is either true or false.

Imagine you're a regular at a local coffee shop. You publish an Attestation that says the shop is real and the owner behind the Nostr public key is who they claim to be. Your friends trust you, so they start trusting the shop's digital identity too.

However, attestations applied to Places are just a single use case. The attestation concept could be more widely applied across Nostr in a variety of ways (key rotation, identity linking, etc).

Here is a recent example from @lyn that would carry more signal if it were an Attestation:

https://i.nostr.build/lZAXOEwvRIghgFY4.png

Parallels can be drawn between Attestations and transaction confirmations on the Bitcoin timechain; however, their importance to you would be weighted by clients and/or Data Vending Machines in accordance with:

1. Your social graph;
2. The type or subject of the content being attested and by whom;
3. Your personal preferences.

They could also have a validity duration to be temporally bound, which would be particularly useful in the case of Places.

NIP-25 (Reactions) do allow for users to up/downvote notes with optional content (e.g., emojis) and could work for Attestations, but I think we need something less ambiguous and more definitive.

‘This is true’ resonates more strongly than ‘I like this.’.

https://i.nostr.build/s8NIG2kXzUCLcoax.jpg

There are similar concepts in the Web 3 / Web 5 world such as Verified Credentials by tdb. However, Nostr is the Web 3 now and so wen Attestation NIP?

https://i.nostr.build/Cb047NWyHdJ7h5Ka.jpg

That said, I have seen @utxo has been exploring ‘smart contracts’ on nostr and Attestations may just be a relatively ‘dumb’ subset of the wider concept Nostr-native scripting combined with web-of-trust.

Proof of Place

Attestations handle the signalling of your truth, but what about the initial verification itself?

We already covered how this ultimately has to be derived from your social graph, but what if there was a way to help bootstrap this web-of-trust through the use of oracles? For those unfamiliar with oracles in the digital realm, they are simply trusted purveyors of truth.

Introducing Proof of Place, an out–of-band process where an oracle (such as BTC Map) would mail - yes physically mail- a shared secret to the address of the location being claimed in cyberspace. This shared secret would be locked to the public key (npub) making the claim, which, if unlocked, would prove that the associated private key (nsec) has physical access to the location in meatspace.

One way of doing this would be to mint a 1 sat cashu ecash token locked to the npub of the claimant and mail it to them. If they are able to redeem the token then they have cryptographically proven that they have physical access to the location.

Proof of Place is really nothing more than a weighted Attestation. In a web-of-trust Nostrverse, an oracle is simply a npub (say BTC Map) that you weigh heavily for its opinion on a given topic (say Places).

In the Bitcoin world, Proof of Work anchors digital scarcity in cyberspace to physical scarcity (energy and time) in meatspace and as @Gigi says in PoW is Essential:

"A failure to understand Proof of Work, is a failure to understand Bitcoin."

In the Nostrverse, Proof of Place helps bridge the digital and physical worlds.

@Gigi also observes in Memes vs The World that:

"In Bitcoin, the map is the territory. We can infer everything we care about by looking at the map alone."

https://i.nostr.build/dOnpxfI4u7EL2v4e.png

This isn’t true for Nostr.

In the Nostrverse, the map IS NOT the territory. However, Proof of Place enables us to send cryptographic drones down into the physical territory to help us interpret our digital maps. 🤯

Check-ins

Although not a draft NIP yet, @Arkinox has also been exploring the familiar concept of Foursquare-style Check-ins on Nostr (with kind 13811 notes).

For the uninitiated, Check-ins are simply notes that signal the publisher is at a given location. These locations could be Places (in the Nostr sense) or any other given digital representation of a location for that matter (such as OSM elements) if NIP-73 - External Content IDs are used.

Of course, not everyone will be a Check-in enjoyooor as the concept will not sit well with some people’s threat models and OpSec practices.

Bringing Check-ins to Nostr is possible (as @sebastix capably shows here), but they suffer the same authenticity issues as Places. Just because I say I'm at a given location doesn't mean that I am.

Back in the Web 2.0 days, Foursquare mitigated this by relying on the GPS position of the phone running their app, but this is of course spoofable.

How should we approach Check-in verifiability in the Nostrverse? Well, just like with Places, we can use Attestations and WoT. In the context of Check-ins, an Attestation from the identity (npub) of the Place being checked-in to would be a particularly strong signal. An NFC device could be placed in a coffee shop and attest to check-ins without requiring the owner to manually intervene - I’m sure @blackcoffee and @Ben Arc could hack something together over a weekend!

Check-ins could also be used as a signal for bonafide Place ownership over time.

Summary: Trust Your Bros

So, to recap, we have:

Places: Digital representations of physical locations on Nostr.

Check-ins: Users signalling their presence at a location.

Attestations: Verifiable social proofs used to confirm ownership or the truth of a claim.

You can visualise how these three concepts combine in the diagram below:

https://i.nostr.build/Uv2Jhx5BBfA51y0K.jpg

And, as always, top right trumps bottom left! We have:

Level 0 - Trust Me Bro: Anyone can check-in anywhere. The Place might not exist or might be impersonating the real place in meatspace. The person behind the npub may not have even been there at all.

Level 1 - Definitely Maybe Somewhere: This category covers the middle-ground of ‘Maybe at a Place’ and ‘Definitely Somewhere’. In these examples, you are either self-certifying that you have checked-in at an Attested Place or you are having others attest that you have checked-in at a Place that might not even exist IRL.

Level 2 - Trust Your Bros: An Attested Check-in at an Attested Place. Your individual level of trust would be a function of the number of Attestations and how you weigh them within your own social graph.

https://i.nostr.build/HtLAiJH1uQSTmdxf.jpg

Perhaps the gold standard (or should that be the Bitcoin standard?) would be a Check-in attested by the owner of the Place, which in itself was attested by BTC Map?

Or perhaps not. Ultimately, it’s the users responsibility to determine what they trust by forming their own perspective within the Nostrverse powered by web-of-trust algorithms they control. ‘Trust Me Bro’ or ‘Trust Your Bros’ - you decide.

As we navigate the frontier of cryptographic ownership and decentralised data, it’s up to us to find the balance between preserving the Open Data commons and embracing self-sovereign digital identities.

Thanks

With thanks to Arkinox, Avi, Ben Gunn, Kieran, Blackcoffee, Sebastix, Tomek, Calle, Short Fiat, Ben Weeks and Bitcoms for helping shape my thoughts and refine content, whether you know it or not!

@ 09fbf8f3:fa3d60f0

由于gmail在中国被防火墙拦截了，无法打开，不想错过邮件通知。

通过自建ntfy接受gmail邮件通知。 怎么自建ntfy，后面再写。

---

2024年08月13日更新：

修改不通过添加邮件标签来标记已经发送的通知，通过Google Sheets来记录已经发送的通知。

为了不让Google Sheets文档的内容很多，导致文件变大，用脚本自动清理一个星期以前的数据。

---

准备工具

• Ntfy服务
• Google Script
• Google Sheets

操作步骤

1. 在Ntfy后台账号，设置访问令牌。
2. 添加订阅主题。
3. 进入Google Sheets创建一个表格.记住id，如下图：
4. 进入Google Script创建项目。填入以下代码（注意填入之前的ntfy地址和令牌）：

```javascript function checkEmail() { var sheetId = "你的Google Sheets id"; // 替换为你的 Google Sheets ID var sheet = SpreadsheetApp.openById(sheetId).getActiveSheet();

// 清理一星期以前的数据 cleanOldData(sheet, 7 * 24 * 60); // 保留7天（即一周）内的数据

var sentEmails = getSentEmails(sheet);

var threads = GmailApp.search('is:unread'); Logger.log("Found threads: " + threads.length);

if (threads.length === 0) return;

threads.forEach(function(thread) { var threadId = thread.getId();

if (!sentEmails.includes(threadId)) {
  thread.getMessages().forEach(sendNtfyNotification);
  recordSentEmail(sheet, threadId);
}

}); }

function sendNtfyNotification(email) { if (!email) { Logger.log("Email object is undefined or null."); return; }

var message = `发件人: ${email.getFrom() || "未知发件人"} 主题: ${email.getSubject() || "无主题"}

内容: ${email.getPlainBody() || "无内容"}`;

var url = "https://你的ntfy地址/Gmail"; var options = { method: "post", payload: message, headers: { Authorization: "Bearer Ntfy的令牌" }, muteHttpExceptions: true };

try { var response = UrlFetchApp.fetch(url, options); Logger.log("Response: " + response.getContentText()); } catch (e) { Logger.log("Error: " + e.message); } }

function getSentEmails(sheet) { var data = sheet.getDataRange().getValues(); return data.map(row => row[0]); // Assuming email IDs are stored in the first column }

function recordSentEmail(sheet, threadId) { sheet.appendRow([threadId, new Date()]); }

function cleanOldData(sheet, minutes) { var now = new Date(); var thresholdDate = new Date(now.getTime() - minutes * 60 * 1000); // 获取X分钟前的时间

var data = sheet.getDataRange().getValues(); var rowsToDelete = [];

data.forEach(function(row, index) { var date = new Date(row[1]); // 假设日期保存在第二列 if (date < thresholdDate) { rowsToDelete.push(index + 1); // 存储要删除的行号 } });

// 逆序删除（从最后一行开始删除，以避免行号改变） rowsToDelete.reverse().forEach(function(row) { sheet.deleteRow(row); }); }

```

4.Goole Script需要添加gmail服务，如图：

5.Google Script是有限制的不能频繁调用，可以设置五分钟调用一次。如图：

结尾

本人不会代码，以上代码都是通过chatgpt生成的。经过多次修改，刚开始会一直发送通知，后面修改后将已发送的通知放到一个“通知”的标签里。后续不会再次发送通知。

如需要发送通知后自动标记已读，可以把代码复制到chatgpt给你写。

效果预览：

@ 870cfe16:b993de62

(This is my first "Reads" post. Testing it out with a short Christmas idea)

Although this article may go out a little late for those pondering if this Christmas they should buy a tree, new or old, I realized an opportunity when I saw a meter high tree… potted.

It occurred to me that if I looked past the fact that this was not a large tree, that traditionally seem to fill in many northern countries’ living rooms, this meant so many things:

-I’m not killing it (water it and it lives on)

-Easy to move (I can carry it home (even on a bike!)

-Less decor to buy (and easier to manage to make instead)

-And the most important to me… At the end of the season, you can plant it.

Now what happens every year that I do this? What if we each bought a tree and had many in the house rather than just one big one? And then planted a new one each year? Maybe it’s not a pine tree every year, but a native one to the area.

We become yearly tree planters. Not everyone may have the place to plant them, but there could be a non-profit organization that could organize drive outs with you as one of the volunteers, maybe you help pick up the one at a grandma’s house… and you sit down with them for a bit and start to get to know your community.

A scalable healthy way to maintain a Christmas tradition, while bringing the community together and helping to clean the air again.

(This article was written without the help of any grammar checks or AI, just a humble spell checker)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

tempreites

My first library to get stars on GitHub, was a very stupid templating library that used just HTML and HTML attributes ("DSL-free"). I was inspired by http://microjs.com/ at the time and ended up not using the library. Probably no one ever did.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/tempreites

@ e83b66a8:b0526c2b

I watched Tucker Carlson interview Roger Ver last night.

I know we have our differences with Roger, and he has some less than pleasant personality traits, but he is facing 109 years in jail for tax evasion. While the charges may be technically correct, he should be able to pay the taxes and a fine and walk free. Even if we accept he did wrong, a minor prison term such as 6 months to 2 years would be appropriate in this case.

We all know the severe penalty is an over reach by US authorities looking to make the whole crypto community scared about using any form of crypto as money.

The US and many governments know they have lost the battle of Bitcoin as a hard asset, but this happened as a result of the Nash equilibrium, whereby you are forced to play a game that doesn’t benefit you, because not playing that game disadvantages you further. I.e. Governments loose control of the asset, but that asset is able to shore up their balance sheet and prevent your economy from failing (potentially).

The war against Bitcoin (and other cryptos) as a currency, whereby you can use your Bitcoin to buy anything anywhere from a pint of milk in the local shop, to a house or car and everything in-between is a distant goal and one that is happening slowly. But it is happening and these are the new battle lines.

Part of that battle is self custody, part is tax and part are the money transmitting laws.

Roger’s case is also being used as a weapon of fear.

I don’t hate Roger, the problem I have with Bitcoin cash is that you cannot run a full node from your home and if you can’t do this, it is left to large corporations to run the blockchain. Large corporations are much easier to control and coerce than thousands, perhaps millions of individuals. Just as China banned Bitcoin mining, so in this scenario it would be possible for governments to ban full nodes and enforce that ban by shutting down companies that attempted to do so.

Also, if a currency like Bitcoin cash scaled to Visa size, then Bitcoin Cash the company would become the new Visa / Mastercard and only the technology would change. However, even Visa and Mastercard don’t keep transaction logs for years, that would require enormous amount of storage and have little benefit. Nobody needs a global ledger that keeps a record of every coffee purchased in every coffee shop since the beginning of blockchain time.

This is why Bitcoin with a layer 2 payment system like Lightning is a better proposition than large blockchain cryptos. Once a payment channel is closed, the transactions are forgotten in the same way Visa and Mastercard only keep a transaction history for 1 or 2 years.

This continues to allow the freedom for anybody, anywhere to verify the money they hold and the transactions they perform along with everybody else. We have consensus by verification.

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

Resilience is the ability to withstand shocks, adapt, and bounce back. It’s an essential quality in nature and in life. But what if we could take resilience a step further? What if, instead of merely surviving, a system could improve when faced with stress? This concept, known as anti-fragility, is not just theoretical—it’s practical. Combining two highly resilient natural tools, comfrey and biochar, reveals how we can create systems that thrive under pressure and grow stronger with each challenge.

Comfrey: Nature’s Champion of Resilience

Comfrey is a plant that refuses to fail. Once its deep roots take hold, it thrives in poor soils, withstands drought, and regenerates even after being cut down repeatedly. It’s a hardy survivor, but comfrey doesn’t just endure—it contributes. Known as a dynamic accumulator, it mines nutrients from deep within the earth and brings them to the surface, making them available for other plants.

Beyond its ecological role, comfrey has centuries of medicinal use, earning the nickname "knitbone." Its leaves can heal wounds and restore health, a perfect metaphor for resilience. But as impressive as comfrey is, its true potential is unlocked when paired with another resilient force: biochar.

Biochar: The Silent Powerhouse of Soil Regeneration

Biochar, a carbon-rich material made by burning organic matter in low-oxygen conditions, is a game-changer for soil health. Its unique porous structure retains water, holds nutrients, and provides a haven for beneficial microbes. Soil enriched with biochar becomes drought-resistant, nutrient-rich, and biologically active—qualities that scream resilience.

Historically, ancient civilizations in the Amazon used biochar to transform barren soils into fertile agricultural hubs. Known as terra preta, these soils remain productive centuries later, highlighting biochar’s remarkable staying power.

Yet, like comfrey, biochar’s potential is magnified when it’s part of a larger system.

The Synergy: Comfrey and Biochar Together

Resilience turns into anti-fragility when systems go beyond mere survival and start improving under stress. Combining comfrey and biochar achieves exactly that.

1. Nutrient Cycling and Retention\ Comfrey’s leaves, rich in nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, make an excellent mulch when cut and dropped onto the soil. However, these nutrients can wash away in heavy rains. Enter biochar. Its porous structure locks in the nutrients from comfrey, preventing runoff and keeping them available for plants. Together, they create a system that not only recycles nutrients but amplifies their effectiveness.

2. Water Management\ Biochar holds onto water making soil not just drought-resistant but actively water-efficient, improving over time with each rain and dry spell.

3. Microbial Ecosystems\ Comfrey enriches soil with organic matter, feeding microbial life. Biochar provides a home for these microbes, protecting them and creating a stable environment for them to multiply. Together, they build a thriving soil ecosystem that becomes more fertile and resilient with each passing season.

Resilient systems can withstand shocks, but anti-fragile systems actively use those shocks to grow stronger. Comfrey and biochar together form an anti-fragile system. Each addition of biochar enhances water and nutrient retention, while comfrey regenerates biomass and enriches the soil. Over time, the system becomes more productive, less dependent on external inputs, and better equipped to handle challenges.

This synergy demonstrates the power of designing systems that don’t just survive—they thrive.

Lessons Beyond the Soil

The partnership of comfrey and biochar offers a valuable lesson for our own lives. Resilience is an admirable trait, but anti-fragility takes us further. By combining complementary strengths and leveraging stress as an opportunity, we can create systems—whether in soil, business, or society—that improve under pressure.

Nature shows us that resilience isn’t the end goal. When we pair resilient tools like comfrey and biochar, we unlock a system that evolves, regenerates, and becomes anti-fragile. By designing with anti-fragility in mind, we don’t just bounce back, we bounce forward.

By designing with anti-fragility in mind, we don’t just bounce back, we bounce forward.

@ 7460b7fd:4fc4e74b

请看2014年王兴的一场思维碰撞，视频27分钟开始

最后，一个当时无法解决的点：丢失

@ 74e4eb50:d6662b8b

WHO-Austritt der USA in wenigen Wochen

Donald Trump dürfte am ersten Tag im Weißen Haus die USA aus der WHO rausholen. Das sollen die Pläne seines Teams sein.  Die kommende Trump-Administration plant einen unverzüglichen Rückzug der USA aus der WHO. „Am ersten Tag“ im Weißen Haus will das Übergangsteam um Trump diesen Schritt unternehmen. Damit wird die WHO die größte Finanzierungsquelle [...]

Der Beitrag WHO-Austritt der USA in wenigen Wochen (https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/who-austritt-der-usa-in-wenigen-wochen/) erschien zuerst unter tkp.at (https://tkp.at).

Comments: https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/who-austritt-der-usa-in-wenigen-wochen/#comments

https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/who-austritt-der-usa-in-wenigen-wochen/

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

litepub

A Go library that abstracts all the burdensome ActivityPub things and provides just the right amount of helpers necessary to integrate an existing website into the "fediverse" (what an odious name). Made for the gravity integration.

• https://godoc.org/github.com/fiatjaf/litepub

See also

-

@ df67f9a7:2d4fc200

Anyone who thinks that “onboarding new users” is simply a technical challenge of educating people about “how Nostr works”, is grossly mistaken about social networks in general and blind to what makes Nostr so special.

Social Networks are for Friends

Relationship building is why people use social networks. Connecting with friends and loved ones (and colleagues and customers also) is the obvious reason to join, and should be the primary objective in any onboarding endeavor. Everything else “about the technology” only needs to be introduced “as needed” in order for each new user to achieve this goal.

The Nostr Network Requires Trusted Friendships

To thrive at scale, Nostr needs to have established and interconnected “webs of trusted friends” for “verifying” authentic profiles and quality content. This PgP strategy for decentralized trust implemented on Nostr, is the best way to keep bots and bad actors at bay while preserving freedom and sovereignty for every user. Even though Nostr still doesn’t have a standard for determining who “is trusted” for any one user across all clients, we can already build tools to onboard new friends of the highest quality trust. Leveraging existing relationships, “webs of trust” can be strengthened even at this early stage simply by advocates “inviting friends to Nostr”.

Nostr is New and Already Full of Trusted Friends

But it won’t be for long. Bots and bad actors are relatively “easy” to keep at bay today because the Nostr userbase is still small. People who come to Nostr and STAY have mostly been a self selecting group of “freedom tech fans”. We like it this way, and are generally happy to be here. The comraderie is refreshing. But the more people that come to Nostr, the more Nostr will attract different kinds of people.

This is already happening. Nostr is growing at the edges, reaching out beyond the “freedom tech fans” and attracting a number of “less committed” (and some nefarious) individuals here and there. Who sticks around? The “friends of freedom tech fans” stick around longer because they have friends here. WAY BEFORE even considering how “the network effect” will take over, Nostr needs to solve for retention by bringing more “trusted friends” into the network. Social onboarding tools will allow us to share Nostr to “friends of freedom tech fans” and beyond, establishing interconnected “webs of trust” that are increasingly impermeable to bots and bad actors.

Nostr is Freedom Tech that People Want to Share

Creators and influencers of every kind share Nostr (and Nostr content) every day. This phenomenon is a gold mine for onboarding, and can be supported with tools and incentives. Driven by the fact that Nostr is an open protocol, owned by nobody and available for anybody to build upon and profit from, the passion for sharing Nostr will never wane. But our userbase may fall off, if people become disenchanted by undesirable content or lack of good follows. This is why onboarding efforts, to attract more “friends” to the network, are so important. Leveraging the “share worthy” phenomenon of Nostr itself to grow Nostr’s networks of “trusted friends” seems like a no brainer. But for this strategy to work, it needs to be win win win for all parties.

Everybody Wins with More Trusted Users on Nostr

Even as standards for qualifying trust are still being refined, “social onboarding” increases the ratio of “more” trusted over “less” trusted users across the network.

Developers Win

With more trusted users on the network, Nostr developers win by being able to attract an increasingly diverse range of business partners to sponsor their projects.

Sponsors Win

An increase in trusted usership equates to more “real people” perusing “desired content” and more chances for brands to engage “organically” with target audiences. Marketing opportunities increase with trust.

Advocates Win

Simply by sharing Nostr with their friends, Advocates support the sustained growth of trust across the network. Valuable zap reward programs to incentivize high quality onboarding efforts are easily justified and funded by social onboarding clients and their sponsors.

Users Win

More trusted users across the network means more trustworthy content in every feed and more easily discoverable friends and new follows regardless of the client or algorithm used.

Nostr Wins

More trusted users on the network means more “high quality” trust connections between each user. Strong webs of trust is what keeps out bots and bad actors, and is essential for stability as Nostr scales.

Social Onboarding Clients Bring Trust to Nostr

Having more tools for “sharing Nostr with friends” is how Nostr wins. Any client can have capacity for “Social Onboarding”. This may be a dedicated onboarding client or a feature set within a social client. A client that offers “Social Onboarding” will support Nostr advocates and the users that they invite. These should have the following feature set :

• Nostr advocates may create and share any number of customizable “Nostr invites” for different audiences or occasions. Each may have different reccomendations, or access codes, or expiry options. (A NIP is in the works)
• Nostr invite QR codes (and shareable URLs) should resolve to a WEB based interface for prospective (and existing) users who MAY NOT have a client or browser extension already installed.
• Each invite should (within the onboarding client) provide access to low friction profile creation AND advocate reccomended lists of new friends, interest groups, preferred clients, best relays, and other stuff.
• Private key generation and management for new users should be handled entirely within the onboarding client (using NIP standards without a browser extension or external bunker app) to reduce friction at this crucial moment.
• A human readable Nostr address (NIP05 or some future NIP) should be generated automatically for all new users.
• New account creation should result immediately in a direct message or group thread of private “gift wrap” encrypted messages. This thread acts as the new user’s “first contact” with the advocate (possibly others as well) and an anchor for exploring the rest of Nostr.
• Invite “receipt” data (who invited who) should be “gift wrap” encrypted, accessible only to the advocate and new user. Clients wishing to use this data for analytics MAY request access from BOTH parties.
• Top Advocates may be calculated by the client (using data from invite receipts OR from public Nostr usage metrics), and awards may be offered.
• Advocates may also be supported by the client through access to private “advocate support” groups and communities over the Nostr network.

Support Social Onboarding for Nostr

Meet Me On Nostr is an app for sharing Nostr with friends via advocate invites. It is a reference client to demonstrate the power of Social Onboarding for Nostr. The first launch of "feature complete" client is expected in fall 2024.

This is a “bootstrap” funded project in active development. We are not grant funded or VC funded. Instead, we are looking to pay our developers by sponsorships from “Nostr adjacent” businesses who want to increase brand recognition over this new social network.

Is Your Business Nostr Adjacent?

“I’d like to advertise on Nostr but it’s “not quite ready” says our marketing team.”

“It has potential, and we have alignment, but the technology is still a bit rough.”

“Nostr is a perfect fit for our “target audience”, but there simply aren’t enough people using it.”

If your business is aligned with freedom technology, and the people who build and use Nostr, then NOW is the perfect time to sponsor Social Onboarding. Help grow Nostr’s base of trusted users and engage directly with Nostr’s most active advocates and influencers as it scales.

Release Nostr’s Superpower

When Nostr advocates are equipped and incentivized to share Nostr with their friends, nothing can stop this network from growing and growing and growing ever more secure and interconnected networks of trusted users.

Onboarding and retaining trusted users as Nostr scales will require so much more than just pointing people to “how Nostr works” content. Nostr’s true power lies dormant in the existing relationships that Nostr users already have outside of Nostr. Leveraging this power is what Social Onboarding is all about. Social Onboarding is Nostr’s superpower.

Contribute to the Geyser Fund

@ 2fb77d26:c47a6ee1

»Worte interessieren nur da, wo sie zu Taten führen«, notierte ich vor knapp 15 Jahren für einen meiner Texte. Gelten sollte diese Prämisse vor allem für Wahlversprechen. Doch die Geschichte zeigt, dass von den vollmundigen Zusicherungen eines Wahlkampfes nach Amtsantritt kaum etwas umgesetzt wird. Davon muss wohl auch in Bezug auf die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2024 ausgegangen werden. Auch wenn viele immer noch auf eine »Trockenlegung des Sumpfes« hoffen. Ein Überblick.

Original mit Quellen (VÖ: 14.11.2024): https://www.regenauer.press/trump-reloaded

Unterhaltsam ist es bisweilen. Keine Frage. Ist ja auch Politainment. Fake. Eine Show. Eine ziemlich kostenintensive dazu. Und einer gewissen Schadenfreude kann man sich in der Tat kaum verwehren, betrachtet man die irrationalen Reaktionen, Nervenzusammenbrüche und infantilen Ausraster der Wahlverlierer – dem Lager, das in puncto Covid, Klimaschutz und Genderpolitik nie einen Hehl aus seinen totalitären Anwandlungen machte. Leider wird aus Spaß aber schnell bitterer ernst. So tötete ein psychisch labiler Mann aus Minnesota am Tag nach Donald Trumps Wahlsieg zuerst seine ehemalige Partnerin und deren Kind, dann seine Frau und den eigenen Sohn, und anschließend sich selbst. Während die Polizei bislang kein offizielles Tatmotiv kommuniziert, implizieren Social-Media-Beiträge des 46-jährigen Demokraten, dass seine Angst vor den Republikanern, beziehungsweise dem Einzug Trumps ins Weiße Haus, durchaus Auslöser des Amoklaufes sein könnten.

Während die weithin von »Wokeness« beseelten Demokraten ihre Wunden lecken, zelebrieren das konservative Lager der Republikaner und die MAGA-Apologeten einen vermeintlich historischen Sieg. Trump selbst verspricht bei seiner Siegesrede ein »goldenes Zeitalter«. Dass er jetzt »alles in Ordnung bringen« werde. Die Krypto-Branche wähnt sich im Aufwind. Der Bitcoin-Kurs steigt. Dow Jones, S&P 500 und Nasdaq erreichen neue Allzeithochs. In Iowa soll 2026 eine Art Weltausstellung stattfinden, um das 250-jährige Jubiläum Amerikas zu feiern. Bis zum Beginn der Feierlichkeiten sollen Elon Musk und Vivek Ramaswamy die Ausgaben des Staatsapparats um zwei Billionen US-Dollar reduziert haben. Natürlich ist Trump auch die letzte Chance der USA, um endlich die Grenze zu Mexiko zu sichern. Und von Robert F. Kennedy Jr. erwartet man, die Vereinigten Staaten im Rahmen eines MAHA-Programmes – »Make America Healthy Again« – wieder gesund zu machen.

Im Überschwang der Euphorie – oder Frust der Niederlage – fällt gerne unter den Tisch, dass Wähler in Amerika den Präsidenten gemäß Verfassung gar nicht direkt wählen dürfen, weil das für die Wahl des Präsidenten zuständige Electoral College im Prinzip völlig unabhängig vom eigentlichen Wahlausgang entscheiden kann. Die Wahlmänner könnten auch jeden anderen zum Staatsoberhaupt ernennen. Ob das Volk ihn will, oder er überhaupt angetreten ist, spielt rein formal gar keine Rolle. Bei genauerer Betrachtung also nicht unbedingt Demokratie in Reinform. Egal. Schnöde Details. »Trust the plan. Wir haben gewonnen. Geschichte wurde geschrieben« – und so weiter.

Die NATO gibt unterdes zu Protokoll, dass sich an ihrer geostrategischen Agenda »nichts ändern wird, egal, wer die Wahl gewinnt«, weil das »im Interesse der Vereinigten Staaten liege«. Vielleicht hat das US-Militär ja deshalb nur wenige Stunden nach Schließung der Wahllokale eine Minuteman III Interkontinentalrakete zu Testzwecken abgefeuert. Eine Langstreckenwaffe, die drei einzeln steuerbare Atomsprengköpfe transportieren kann.

Auch das Ron Paul Institute rechnet nicht mit grundlegenden Veränderungen und führt diverse Bereiche an, die unabhängig von der Besetzung des Oval Office ein Problem bleiben werden: Kontinuierliche Unterminierung der Verfassung, Krieg gegen die eigene Bevölkerung, Tiefenstaat, Washingtons ausufernde, verstetigte Notstandsermächtigungen, Militärinterventionen in aller Welt, maßlose Korruption und staatliche Tyrannei. Klingt nicht wirklich nach einem goldenen Zeitalter.

Die Reaktionen rund um die US-Wahl – ob positiv oder negativ, ob vor Ort oder im Rest der Welt – veranschaulichen jedenfalls, dass Wahlen Emotionsamplituden auslösen, die in keiner Relation zu dem stehen, was ein Präsident, Kanzler oder Premierminister tatsächlich bewirken kann. Sonst hätte Trump den tiefenstaatlichen »Sumpf« ja schon in seiner ersten Amtsperiode trockenlegen können.

Während die Demokraten also darauf warten, dass die USA ab dem 20. Januar 2025 zur Diktatur verkommen und auf Demonstrationen gegen das Resultat der US-Variante von Demokratie protestieren, fiebern die anderen dem Anbruch eines goldenen Zeitalters entgegen.

Genug Zeit also, den 47. Heilsbringer im Oval Office noch einmal genauer unter die Lupe zu nehmen. Denn auch wenn Donald Trump sich fraglos darauf versteht, zu unterhalten und große Reden von Freiheit und staatlicher Souveränität, von Weltfrieden und Prosperität zu schwingen, sprechen seine Taten zumeist eine ganz andere Sprache.

Fangen wir vorne an: Dank der Zurückstellung vom Wehrdienst konnte Donald Trump bereits 1968 bei Trump Management einsteigen, dem Unternehmen seines Vaters Fred C. Trump, der vor allem mit staatlichen geförderten Wohnungsbauprojekten – »Federal Housing Projects«, heute die Ghettos von New York – zum Multimillionär geworden war. 1971 übernahm Donald im Alter von 25 Jahren die Geschäftsleitung der Firma. Bei Interviews prahlt er bis heute gerne damit, dass sein Vater ihm in jungen Jahren »lediglich einen kleinen Kredit« über eine Million Dollar als Startkapital gewährte. Daraus habe er dann als gewiefter Unternehmer ein Immobilienimperium erschaffen. Dieser Darstellung widerspricht ein Artikel der New York Times (NYT) vom 2. Oktober 2018, der basierend auf Steuer- und Buchhaltungsunterlagen kalkuliert, dass Donald Trump gut 60 Millionen US-Dollar an Krediten erhielt.

»Im Alter von drei Jahren verdiente Trump am Imperium seines Vaters 200.000 Dollar jährlich. Mit acht Jahren war er Millionär. Mit 17 Jahren überließ ihm sein Vater einen Teilbesitz an einem Mehrfamilienhaus mit 52 Wohneinheiten. Kurz nachdem Trump das College abgeschlossen hatte, erhielt er von seinem Vater jährlich umgerechnet eine Million Dollar. Über die Jahre stiegen die jährlichen Schenkungen. In seinen Vierzigern und Fünfzigern lagen sie bei über fünf Millionen Dollar jährlich.«

Als Fred Trump im Juni 1999 verstarb, hatte der trickreiche Unternehmer und Steuerallergiker seinem Sprössling nach Berechnungen der NYT insgesamt 413 Millionen Dollar überschrieben. Selbst wenn New York Times, Associated Press und Co. im Jahr 2018 mit diesen Artikeln fraglos Stimmung gegen Trump machen wollten, kann dessen selbstbeweihräuchernde Darstellung augenscheinlich nicht ganz der Wahrheit entsprechen.

Aber: Er hatte Erfolg. Und das war in der Immobilienbranche des New Yorks der 70er und 80er nicht selbstverständlich. Denn sie wurde von der Mafia dominiert. Von den »Fünf Familien«. Wer nicht den Schutz von »Fat Tony« Salerno, Carmine Galante, Paul Castellano et al. genoss, den Bossen der Genovese-, Bonanno- und Gambino-Familien, hatte schlechte Karten. Das wusste auch Donald Trump. Also macht er Gebrauch von den exzellenten Kontakten seines Freundes, Mentors und Anwalts Roy Cohn, der nicht nur enge Verbindungen zum langjährigen FBI-Chef J. Edgar Hoover pflegte, sondern unter anderem auch Nancy Reagan, die Besitzer des Studio 54, Andy Warhol, die katholische Erzdiözese und die Führungsetage der fünf Mafia-Familien als Anwalt vertrat. Nicht umsonst ist Cohn ein zentraler Charakter in Whitney Webbs Zweiteiler »One Nation under Blackmail«. Den Kontakt zu Cohn, einer Schlüsselfigur für die Zusammenarbeit von Oberschicht und Unterwelt, suchte Donald Trump bereits 1973, als die US-Regierung ein Unternehmen seines Vaters verklagte. Er sollte bestehen bleiben, bis Cohn im August 1986 seiner AIDS-Erkrankung erlag.

Cohns Verbindungen zu Politik, Mafia und Jimmy Hoffas teilkrimineller Teamster-Gewerkschaft sorgten dafür, dass Trump in der Stadt Fuß fassen und sein Geschäft ausbauen konnte. Im Gegenzug war er gezwungen, überteuerte Baumaterialien von Fat Tonys Tarnfirmen zu beziehen. Nach Angaben eines ehemaligen Mitarbeiters von Cohn trafen sich Trump und Salerno in dessen Stadthaus in Manhattan. Trump will sich an ein solches Meeting allerdings nicht erinnern können – obwohl Salerno 1988 unter anderem wegen Erpressung in Höhe von acht Millionen Dollar im Rahmen eines Trump-Bauprojektes rechtskräftig verurteilt wurde. Die Wahrheit kennt wohl nur Trump selbst. Denn Cohn und Fat Tony sind tot.

Sicher ist: Die Geschäftsbeziehungen zwischen Donald Trump und Firmen des organisierten Verbrechens waren intensiver als seinerzeit üblich. Auf Tonbändern des FBI und der US-Staatsanwaltschaft, damals geleitet vom späteren Trump-Anwalt Rudy Giuliani, die beim Abhören von Mafia-Fahrzeugen und -Etablissements entstanden, ist mehrfach von Trump-Projekten die Rede. Donald passte sich dem Geschäftsgebaren seines Umfelds an. Den opportunistischen, skrupellosen, steuervermeidenden Praktiken seines Vaters – und dem von organisierter Kriminalität durchzogenen Filz des Ostküsten-Establishments.

Donald Trumps Frühphase, seine Geschäfte und Geschäftspartner sind also nicht unbedingt ein Paradebeispiel in Sachen Arbeitsethos. Im Vergleich zu seinen späteren Kontakten wirken seine Buddys der 70er und 80er aber fast noch sympathisch – denn Steuern sind Raub und die Mafia pflegt, im Gegensatz zu Regierungen, Militär und Geheimdiensten, zumindest einen Ehrenkodex.

Die 90er begannen für Trump mit finanziellen Turbulenzen. Diverse Bau- und Casino-Projekte liefen nicht wie geplant. Investments warfen nicht den erwarteten Gewinn ab und die Schulden häuften sich bis zur Zahlungsunfähigkeit. In der Öffentlichkeit gab er jedoch weiterhin den erfolgreichen Entrepreneur. 1995 gründe Trump, immer noch bis über beide Ohren verschuldet, eine Aktiengesellschaft und ging an die Börse. Durch diesen Schritt landete er nach 1989 erstmals wieder auf der Forbes-Liste der reichsten Amerikaner. Da die neue AG aber aufgrund der Altlasten mit 1,7 Milliarden Dollar verschuldet war, fiel ihr Börsenkurs zwischen 1996 und 2005 von 35 Dollar auf 17 Cent. Dann wurde der Handel ausgesetzt. Trump bezog aber noch bis 2009 Vergütungen aus der Gesellschaft in Höhe von 44 Millionen Dollar.

Parallel zu diesen fragwürdigen Umtrieben zu Lasten von Anlegern und Geschäftspartnern mauserte sich Donald Trump zum Society-Phänomen. Ob The Apprentice, WrestleMania, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Talkshows oder soziale Anlässe aller Art – Trump war überall, wo sich Öffentlichkeit für Trump generieren ließ. Mit Erfolg. Überschuldung, Zahlungsunfähigkeit, Mafia-Kontakte, Betrugsvorwürfe und juristische Probleme verblassten im omnipräsenten Scheinwerferlicht.

Weniger glamourös dagegen ist Donald Trumps Beziehung zu einem der verachtenswertesten Menschen der jüngeren Vergangenheit – Jeffrey Epstein. Denn während Trump lange Jahre leugnete, überhaupt mit Epstein in Kontakt gestanden zu haben, belegen unlängst veröffentlichte Audio-Mitschnitte, dass er sehr wohl eine Beziehung mit dem verurteilten Sexualstraftäter, Pädophilen, Menschenhändler und Doppelagenten pflegte. Eine sehr enge.

Jeffrey Epstein bezeichnet sich im Zuge der Aufnahmen als »Trumps engsten Freund«. Für über zehn Jahre. Man besuchte die gleichen Partys, kannte die gleichen Leute. Kaum verwunderlich. Epstein war bestens mit dem »Who is Who« des Establishments vernetzt – auch mit dem zwielichtigen Roy Cohn. Es liegt nahe, dass über diesen der Erstkontakt zustande kam. Epstein erpresste elitäre Zirkel in aller Welt mit heimlich aufgenommenen Videos arrangierter Sex-Eskapaden. Die Opfer: Meist Minderjährige. Manche erst acht Jahre alt. Wer Macht und Einfluss ausüben und sichern wollte, nahm seine Dienste in Anspruch. Das wusste wohl jeder seiner engeren Kontakte. Trotzdem sprach Donald Trump von einem »tollen Typen, den er seit 15 Jahren kenne«, als er in einem Interview mit dem New York Magazine 2002 nach seiner Meinung zu Epstein und der gemeinsamen Vorliebe für junge Frauen gefragt wurde. Darüber hinaus flog Donald Trump mindestens sieben Mal mit Jeffrey Epsteins Privatjet, besser bekannt als »Lolita Express«.

Elon Musk, über dessen hinter Imagedesign verborgene Nähe zu Militär, Geheimdiensten, Big Pharma und Transhumanisten ich bereits im Oktober 2022 ausführlich berichtet habe, hatte ebenfalls Verbindungen zu Jeffrey Epstein, wie ein ausführliches Dossier von Johnny Vedmore belegt. Ganz zu schweigen von Musks Forderungen nach CO2-Steuern gegen den Klimawandel oder seinen offenen Plädoyers für Technokratie, einem faschistischen Herrschaftsmodell, das schon sein Großvater Joshua N. Haldemann in leitender Position vertrat. Man kann sich also ausmalen, was unter einem Effizienzprogramm unter Musks Ägide zu erwarten ist – Tech-Faschismus, getarnt als libertäre Progressivität.

Auch RFK Jr. flog zwei Mal mit dem »Lolita Express«, gibt aber an, in Begleitung von Frau und Kindern gereist zu sein – während er gleichzeitig erklärt, die beiden Flüge seien nur zustande gekommen, weil seine »Frau irgendeine Art von Beziehung mit Ghislaine Maxwell hatte«. Was für eine Beziehung das war, beschreibt RFK Jr. nicht. Dabei wären die Hintergründe dieser Beziehung durchaus relevant für die Bewertung seiner Verbindung zum Epstein-Netzwerk. Denn Maxwell, deren Elternhaus für CIA und Mossad tätig war, war seit 1991 Epsteins engste Mitarbeiterin. Sie führte ihm minderjährige Mädchen zu. Phantombilder legen nahe, dass sie auch am Verschwinden, beziehungsweise Tod, von Madeleine McCann beteiligt sein könnte. Nach dem als Suizid vermarkteten Mord an Epstein im August 2019 tauchte Maxwell ab. Aufenthaltsort unbekannt. Erst am 2. Juli 2020 konnte das FBI sie festnehmen. Im Dezember 2021 wurde Maxwell wegen Unterstützung von Epsteins Pädo-Business zu 20 Jahren Haft verurteilt.

Man darf gespannt sein, ob Epsteins unter Verschluss gehaltene Kundenliste jemals ans Licht kommt. Wenn Trump nichts zu verbergen hat, seine dahingehenden Ankündigungen wahr machen und den Sumpf trockenlegen will, könnte er damit ordentlich vorlegen. Entsprechende Forderungen stehen ja bereits im Raum.

Bei einer Pressekonferenz im Weißen Haus am 21. Juli 2020 verkündete er allerdings noch, Maxwell mehrfach getroffen zu haben und wünschte ihr »wirklich alles Gute«.

Wahrscheinlich ist eine Offenlegung der Kundenliste aber nicht. Denn auch Trumps neuer Generalstaatsanwalt, Matt Gaetz, gegen den 2020 wegen sexueller Kontakte zu einem minderjährigen Mädchen ermittelt wurde, sprach sich in der Vergangenheit explizit gegen eine neuerliche Überprüfung des Falls Epstein aus. Er behauptete außerdem, Epstein sei von ausländischen Geheimdiensten, nicht vom US-Tiefenstaat ermordet worden. Sein Wahlkampf-Team nutzte denn auch die gleiche Anwaltskanzlei wie Jeffrey Epstein. Und ein enger Vertrauter von Gaetz warb intensiv dafür, Ghislaine Maxwell aus der Haft zu entlassen. Seit 2021 ist Gaetz mit der Schwester des Peter Thiel-Protegés Palmer Lucky verheiratet, der mit seiner Firma Anduril für das High-Tech-Überwachungssystem an der mexikanischen Grenze verantwortlich zeichnet, KI-Waffenprogramme entwickelt und für das US-Verteidigungsministerium an Project Maven arbeitet. Sumpf, soweit das Auge reicht. Trockenzulegen gäbe es da also einiges.

Warten wir’s ab – und werfen unterdes einen Blick auf Donald Trumps erste Amtszeit. Denn auch diesbezüglich sagen Taten mehr als Worte.

Während Trump sich derzeit als Gegner der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) geriert, war er als 45. US-Präsident mit »Operation Warp Speed« (OWS) für eine militarisierte Impf-Kampagne der Superlative verantwortlich, die 300 Millionen Dosen einer experimentellen mRNA-Gentherapie unters Volk bringen und den Herstellern mindestens 18 Milliarden Dollar in die Kasse spülen sollte. Anthony Fauci, den Trump heute gerne öffentlich diffamiert, kümmerte sich für ihn um den Rollout der Injektionen und die damit verbundene Nudging-Propaganda. Für seine Verdienste im Rahmen von OWS erhielt Fauci von Trump am letzten Tag seiner Präsidentschaft eine Auszeichnung, wie eine Pressemitteilung im Archiv des Weißen Hauses belegt. Während Trump sich in den letzten Wochen medienwirksam von Fauci distanzierte und abstritt, diese Auszeichnung abgesegnet zu haben, verweisen Mitarbeiter des Weißen Hauses darauf, dass eine solche Auszeichnung gemäß Protokoll nur dann verliehen wird, wenn der Präsident sie persönlich autorisiert. Fragt sich, wer lügt.

Daneben genehmigte Trump im Februar 2020 eine Zahlung von 1,16 Milliarden US-Dollar an GAVI, die Impfallianz von WHO, Weltbank, UNICEF und der Bill & Melinda Gates Stiftung. Der Betrag sollte GAVI binnen drei Jahren über die CIA-Tarnfirma USAID ausbezahlt werden. Ungeachtet aller Gegenanzeigen, Nebenwirkungen und Kollateralschäden durch Lockdowns und partielle Impfpflichten pries Donald Trump OWS stets als durchschlagenden Erfolg. Erst nach der Ankündigung, mit Kennedy kollaborieren zu wollen, hielt er sich mit dem Eigenlob zurück. Dass er sich in den Wochen vor dem Wahlsieg neu positionierte, dürfte also reine Wahlkampfstrategie gewesen sein.

Wenn Trump nun in Aussicht stellt, Impfungen verbieten und Amerika gemeinsam mit RFK Jr. gesund machen zu wollen, ist das in Anbetracht der immensen Marktmacht von Big Pharma kaum als realistisch zu bewerten. Siehe Briefing des Roosevelt Institute vom 22. Mai 2019. Titel: »Kapern der Regierung – Wie Big Pharma die Gesetzgebung übernahm«. In Trumps Team wurden in den letzten Wochen bereits Stimmen laut, die forderten, sich von RFK Jr. zu distanzieren. Während Kennedy in einem Interview vom 28. Oktober verkündete, Trump habe ihm den »Chefposten der Gesundheitsbehörde HHS versprochen«, stellte Howard Lutnik, Vize-Vorsitzender von Trumps Transition-Team, am 30. Oktober bei CNN fest, dass dies »natürlich nicht der Fall sein werde« und man Kennedy lediglich Zugriff auf Daten gewähren wolle. Am 14. November gab Donald Trump dann allerdings bekannt, RFK Jr. tatsächlich zum Chef der HHS machen zu wollen. Die Nominierung muss aber noch vom Senat bestätigt werden. Und bis Januar kann noch einiges passieren. Die Vergangenheit lässt jedenfalls darauf schließen, dass weder Big Pharma noch WHO oder GAVI künftig unter der neuen Regierung leiden werden.

Dann wären da noch die galoppierenden Staatsschulden der Vereinigten Staaten. Denn unter Trumps Ägide schöpfte die US-Zentralbank allein im Jahr 2020 über drei Billionen Dollar. »Die Vereinigten Staaten haben im Juni mehr Geld gedruckt als in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten nach ihrer Gründung. Letzten Monat war das Haushaltsdefizit der USA – 864 Milliarden Dollar – größer als die Gesamtverschuldung von 1776 bis Ende 1979«, so Dan Morehead, CEO von Pantera Capital am 29. Juli 2020. Seit 2020 hat die Staatsverschuldung um knapp zwölf Billionen Dollar zugenommen und belief sich im September 2024 auf 35,46 Billionen Dollar. Das sollten speziell Trump-Anhänger vor Ort nicht vergessen, wenn sie nun für den Wocheneinkauf deutlich tiefer in die Tasche greifen müssen. Inflation sei Dank.

»Dafür hat Trump keine neuen Kriege angefangen!« – hört man immer wieder, wenn man auf dessen Verfehlungen hinweist. Stimmt. Weil er fünf Krisenherde von der vorherigen Regierung geerbt hat und sich dort austoben konnte. Trump hat nämlich deutlich mehr Drohnen-Einsätze befohlen als sein Vorgänger. Obama autorisierte in den ersten zwei Jahren seiner Amtszeit 186 Einsätze – bei Trump waren es 238. Allein im Jemen hat die Trump-Regierung 176 Angriffe binnen zwei Jahren durchgeführt. Bei Obama waren es 154 in acht Jahren. Und während die Regierung unter Obama zumindest teilweise Daten zu den Opferzahlen dieser Einsätze veröffentlichte, änderte Trump die entsprechenden Transparenzanforderungen und veröffentlichte gar keine Daten. Laut einem Artikel von Foreign Policy vom 9. August 2017 ist Trump »der kriegslüsternste Präsident der jüngeren Geschichte«. Weiter führte das 1970 von Samuel P. Huntington gegründete Magazin aus:

»Unter Trump haben die Vereinigten Staaten bis zum 31. Juli etwa 20.650 Bomben abgeworfen, das sind 80 Prozent der Menge, die unter Obama im gesamten Jahr 2016 abgeworfen wurden. (…) Daten zeigen, dass die Vereinigten Staaten im Irak und in Syrien Bomben in beispiellosem Ausmaß abwerfen. Im Juli warf die Koalition zur Bekämpfung des Islamischen Staats (sprich: die Vereinigten Staaten) 4.313 Bomben ab, 77 Prozent mehr als im Juli letzten Jahres. Im Juni lag die Zahl bei 4.848 – 1.600 Bomben mehr als unter Präsident Barack Obama jemals pro Monat abgeworfen wurden. In Afghanistan ist die Zahl der abgeworfenen Bomben seit Trumps Amtsantritt ebenfalls sprunghaft angestiegen. Im April wurden im Land mehr Bomben abgeworfen als auf dem Höhepunkt von Obamas Truppenaufstockung im Jahr 2012. In diesem Monat bombardierten die Vereinigten Staaten das afghanische Mamand-Tal mit der größten nichtnuklearen Bombe, die jemals abgeworfen wurde. Trump hat auch das militärische Engagement der USA in Ländern außerhalb der Kriegsschauplätze ausgeweitet – nämlich im Jemen, in Somalia und in Pakistan. In den letzten 193 Tagen von Obamas Präsidentschaft gab es in diesen drei Ländern 21 tödliche Anti-Terror-Operationen. Trump hat diese Zahl verfünffacht und mindestens 92 solcher Operationen im Jemen, sieben in Somalia und vier in Pakistan durchgeführt.«

Klingt für mich jetzt nicht so ganz nach Friedenstauben.

Wahrscheinlich war es am Ende nur die Hektik bei der Übergabe der Amtsgeschäfte im Januar 2021, oder der Stress permanenter Medienpräsenz, der Trump auch noch davon abhielt, Julian Assange oder Edward Snowden zu begnadigen. Immerhin war er »kurz davor, einen der beiden auszuwählen«, wie er in einem Interview für Daily Wire verlauten ließ. Am Ende blieb dann aber leider doch nur Zeit für die Begnadigung der anderen 116 Personen auf der Liste. Dumm gelaufen.

Wenden wir uns der Gegenwart zu. Und dem, was uns die nächsten vier Jahre erwarten könnte. Es muss ja jetzt auf jeden Fall alles viel besser laufen als in der ersten Runde. Denn in den Augen vieler seiner Unterstützer habe Trump in der Zwischenzeit viel gelernt und wurde damals nur hinters Licht geführt. Überrumpelt vom Tiefenstaat, den er eigentlich abschaffen wollte. Zudem hat er nun Elon Musk und RFK Jr. an seiner Seite, der gemäß Lutnik zwar keinen Job bekommt, aber immerhin steht irgendwo Kennedy auf der Banderole. Das ist doch auch was.

Ernsthaft. Bereits in Rahmen seiner ersten Amtszeit plante Trump, ein biometrisches System zur Ein- und Ausreisekontrolle zu etablieren. Es sollte zunächst nur für Ausländer gelten. Aber jeder weiß, dass es nicht lange dauert, bis so ein System für jeden gilt. Dazu passt, dass seit Beginn des Wahlkampfes 2024 permanent von der Voter ID gesprochen wird. Ausweise für alle – gegen Wahlbetrug. Bisher besitzen nur knapp 40 Prozent der Amerikaner einen Reisepass. Nur acht Prozent verlassen im Urlaub überhaupt das Land. Die virtuelle Wand wird das ändern, nicht nur an der Grenze zu Mexiko. Denn über kurz oder lang resultiert das Projekt in der flächendeckenden Einführung einer eID. Basis für die eID- oder Voter ID-Infrastruktur könnte zum Beispiel E-Verify sein, ein vom Department of Homeland Security betriebenes Projekt zur Verifikation von Personen, dessen Nutzung für Personalabteilungen von Bundesbehörden seit dem 1. Oktober 2007 obligatorisch ist. Die Nominierung von Tom Homan als Chef der Einwanderungs- und Zollbehörde impliziert, dass genau dieser Kurs eingeschlagen wird. Homan ist Hardliner. Er war Teil des rechtskonservativen Project 2025 und befürwortet neben flächendeckender Biometrie auch die Trennung von Eltern und Kindern an der Grenze.

Kein Zufall also, dass der Gründer der Cardano-Blockchain, Charles Hoskinson, die Regierung Trump ab 2025 in Bezug auf Kryptoanwendungen beraten soll. Immerhin hatte Hoskinson bereits mit dem von Jeffrey Epstein finanzierten Ben Goertzel ein biometrisches eID-System für Schulkinder in Äthiopien entwickelt. Und nachdem die von Peter Thiel finanzierte Silikon-Valley-Marionette JD Vance als Vizepräsident fungiert, hat auch der mächtigste Überwachungskonzern der Welt, Palantir, nun einen Fuß in der Tür des Oval Office. Mit diesem Setup dürfte der gläserne Bürger der Gegenwart bald ein Relikt der Vergangenheit sein.

Ganz zur Freude von Ex-Spion John Ratcliffe, dem neuen CIA-Direktor unter »Orange Man«. In Trumps erster Amtszeit war Ratcliffe »Director of National Intelligence«, unter George W. Bush zuständig für Anti-Terror-Operationen und nationale Sicherheit. Später leitete er zusammen mit John Ashcroft, Generalstaatsanwalt unter Bush und Architekt des Ermächtigungsgesetzes »Patriot Act«, ein Unternehmen für strategische Beratung (AGS). Im Dezember 2023 unterstützte John Ratcliffe den Bilderberger, Kriegstreiber und Tiefenstaat-Neocon Mike Pompeo bei der Erneuerung des Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), der die fortgesetzte, anlasslose Massenüberwachung der US-Bevölkerung legalisiert. Und kaum war er nominiert, machte Ratcliffe am 13. November 2024 auf FOX-News wahrheitswidrig Stimmung gegen den Iran und unterstellte der dortigen Regierung »kriegerische Handlungen« gegenüber den USA.

Kollaborieren wird Ratcliffe künftig mit Tulsi Gabbard. Sie beerbt ihn als Trumps neuer »Director of National Intelligence«. Gabbard war Mitglied der WEF Young Global Leaders sowie des Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Beide Organisationen tilgten ihren Namen von der eigenen Homepage, nachdem Gabbard öffentlich über US-Biowaffenlabore in der Ukraine sprach. In Interviews bestätigt sie ihre Rolle im CFR allerdings selbst. Gabbard befürwortete die Covid-Impfkampagne und schmückt sich gerne mit dem Image »Kriegsveteran« – obwohl sie die Schrecken des Krieges lediglich aus sicherer Entfernung sah. Eine Opportunistin, deren konservativ-kritisches Image nichts weiter ist als ein wackliges Kartenhaus.

»Ich war Kadett. Was ist das Motto der Kadetten in West Point? Du wirst nicht lügen, betrügen, oder stehlen – und diejenigen nicht dulden, die das tun. Ich war der CIA-Direktor. Wir haben gelogen, wir haben betrogen, wir haben gestohlen. Wir haben ganze Trainingskurse dazu absolviert.« (Mike Pompeo, April 2019)

Und wer denkt, Donald Trump werde wenigstens die Einführung einer digitalen Zentralbankwährung (CBDC) verhindern, irrt. Zumindest im Kern. Denn im Rahmen seiner Rede auf der Bitcoin Konferenz 2024 sprach Donald Trump von »regulatorischer Klarheit« sowie der »sicheren und verantwortungsvollen Expansion von Stablecoins«. Damit bestätigte er, dass die Einführung von digitalem Geld über privatwirtschaftliche Entitäten erfolgen wird. Denn ein Konto bei der Zentralbank will niemand. Leider werden aber die Transaktionen all der ach so marktwirtschaftlich eingeführten Digitalwährungen zentral erfasst. Im »Unified Ledger« der Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich (BIZ) in Basel. Was am Ende zum exakt gleichen Ergebnis führt wie eine vom Staat oder der Zentralbank aufgelegte CBDC – zu lückenloser Überwachung mit Interventionspotenzial.

Zurück zur künftigen Regierung. Stabschef im Weißen Haus und damit »mächtigste Frau in Washington« soll Susie Wiles werden – bisher Co-Vositzende von Mercury Public Affairs LLC, einem Lobby-Giganten, der unter anderem Pfizer, GAVI, die Vereinten Nationen oder SpaceX vertritt. Mercury Public Affairs gehört seit 2003 zur Omnicom Group, einem WEF-Partner für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Wiles gilt als die »am meisten gefürchtete und am wenigsten bekannte Politagentin Amerikas«.

Als Außenminister nominierte Trump den von der Zionismus-Lobby korrumpierten Marco Rubio. Einen Neocon. Sprich: Militärischer Interventionismus und unilaterale Hegemonieansprüche. Den Posten des nationalen Sicherheitsberaters offeriert Trump dem ehemaligen Green Beret Mike Waltz. Neben Marco Rubio der zweite Mann in der künftigen Regierung, der sich mit China anlegen möchte. Ergänzt wird das kriegsaffine Duo von Brian Hook, der dem Iran am liebsten sofort den Krieg erklären möchte und den Auftrag erhielt, Schlüsselpositionen im Außenministerium mit geeignetem Personal dafür zu besetzen.

Der ehemalige texanische Kongressabgeordnete Ron Paul sieht in diesen Nominierungen »einen schlechten Tag für jene, die an America First glaubten«. Sollte Trump die Unterstützung der Ukraine seitens Amerika tatsächlich beenden, dürften nämlich ersatzweise zuerst der Iran und langfristig eventuell gar China von Demokratie aus der Luft beglückt werden. Daran wird auch die neue US-Botschafterin bei den Vereinten Nationen nichts ändern. Denn Elise Stefanik hat praktisch keine relevante Berufserfahrung – und ist ebenfalls ein Neocon. Sowohl Stefanik als auch Rubio, Waltz oder Hook setzen sich für weitere Waffenlieferungen nach Israel und eine Fortsetzung des auch von israelischen Zeitungen also solchen bezeichneten Genozids in Gaza ein.

»Die westliche Zivilisation repräsentiert heute das Verständnis, dass Zionismus und Amerikanismus die Frontlinien der westlichen Zivilisation und Freiheit in unserer Welt sind«, erklärte der Army-Veteran, United Against Nuclear Iran-Advokat und Ex-FOX-News-Mitarbeiter Pete Hegseth im April 2019.

An dieser faschistoiden wie imperialistischen Doktrin scheinen sich auch Trump und Co. zu orientieren – denn Hegseth wird nun Verteidigungsminister. Passend dazu wird Mike Huckabee, ein bekennender Zionist, der nächste US-Botschafter in Israel. Huckabee nennt das Westjordanland Judäa und behauptet entgegen historischer Fakten, dass es Teil Israels ist. Auch die Annexion der Westbank fände er in Ordnung. Seine Nominierung kann als Kriegserklärung an die Palästinenser verstanden werden. Wohlwissend, dass Israels völkerrechtswidriges Vorgehen leicht zu einem regionalen, wenn nicht globalen Flächenbrand führen kann.

Apropos globale Themen: Dahingehend lohnt sich ein genauerer Blick auf die Hintergründe des bereits erwähnten Howard Lutnick. Diesen hat die Investigativ-Journalistin Whitney Webb am 7. November 2024 gewagt. Unter der Überschrift »Macht euch bereit für den Kohlenstoffmarkt der Republikaner« erklärt sie:

»Viele der einflussreichsten Namen der kommenden Trump-Regierung sowie der vorherigen haben sich in den letzten Jahren intensiv mit der Schaffung von Kohlenstoffmärkten befasst, während andere eine langjährige Erfolgsgeschichte bei der Implementierung von CO2-Steuern und anderen Formen der CO2-Bepreisung vorweisen können. Der wichtigste unter ihnen ist Howard Lutnick, Co-Vorsitzender von Trumps Transition-Team, der erklärte, seine Aufgabe sei es, Talente für die kommende Regierung zu finden. Lutnick ist der langjährige Leiter von Cantor Fitzgerald, einem der ersten Akteure im Emissionshandel, der sich seitdem zu einem weltweit führenden Unternehmen für ESG-Investitionen, die Finanzierung nachhaltiger Infrastruktur und grüne Anleihen entwickelt hat. So hat sich Cantors nachhaltiger Infrastrukturfonds ausdrücklich der digitalen Transformation, Dekarbonisierung und Verbesserung und Modernisierung alternder Infrastruktur verschrieben, während ein Hauptaugenmerk des Fonds darauf liegen wird, in Emittenten zu investieren, die mit ihren Produkten und Dienstleistungen dazu beitragen, bestimmte Ziele der Vereinten Nationen für nachhaltige Entwicklung zu erreichen. Darüber hinaus ist Invenergy, ein Unternehmen für erneuerbare Energien, das im Rahmen von Bidens umstrittenem Inflationsbekämpfungsgesetz eine beträchtliche Menge an Subventionen erhalten hat und vom ersten Windmilliardär des Landes, Michael Polsky, geleitet wird, der wichtigste Bestandteil eines weiteren Infrastrukturfonds von Cantor. Lutnick sitzt auch im Vorstand eines Satellitenüberwachungsunternehmens namens Satellogic. Neben Lutnick ist der ehemalige Finanzminister von Trump, Steve Mnuchin, Vorsitzender des Vorstands. Auch Joe Dunford, ehemaliger Stabschef des US-Militärs unter Trump, sitzt im Vorstand. Satellogic ist integraler Bestandteil eines Konsortiums, das versucht, durch undurchsichtige vertragliche Vereinbarungen auf kommunaler Ebene einen riesigen, Blockchain-basierten Kohlenstoffmarkt in Lateinamerika durchzusetzen. Dieser Kohlenstoffmarkt, der unter dem Namen GREEN+ operiert, soll auf einer Bitcoin-Sidechain aufgebaut werden. Das entsprechende Emissionsgutschriftsystem ist für lateinamerikanische Gemeinden zutiefst ungerecht. So könnten die betroffenen Gemeinden beispielsweise nur Geld verdienen, wenn Einnahmen unter den für GREEN+ anerkannten, nachhaltigen Projekten generiert werden, während die Investoren von GREEN+ den Großteil der Gewinne einstreichen. Das Programm würde Gemeinden außerdem ohne ihre Zustimmung dem Satellitenüberwachungsapparat von Satellogic (der mit der US-Regierung und dem israelischen Geheimdienst verbunden ist) aussetzen. Darüber hinaus ist GREEN+ in bemerkenswerter Weise mit Personen verbunden, die Trumps Verbündeten in der Region nahestehen. So ist eine wichtige Persönlichkeit in Nayib Bukeles politischer Partei – der Bürgermeister von San Salvador, Mario Durán – Vizepräsident einer der wichtigsten Gruppen, die das GREEN+-Programm orchestrieren, während das Netzwerk Endeavor Argentina, das sehr enge Verbindungen zu Javier Milei pflegt, ebenfalls eng mit Satellogic verbunden ist. Satellogic ist ein von Endeavor unterstütztes Unternehmen, während Endeavors erster Milliardär und Unternehmer, Marcos Galperín von MercadoLibre, im Vorstand von Satellogic sitzt. Darüber hinaus ist ein anderer wichtiger Investor von Satellogic, der Dollar-Stablecoin-Emittent Tether, auch eng mit Howard Lutnick verbunden. Lutnick ist langjähriger Fürsprecher von Tether. Und Cantor Fitzgerald hält den Großteil der US-Staatsanleihen von Tether, um deren Stablecoin und seine Bindung an den US-Dollar zu stützen.«

Das sollte Wähler, die dem Klimawandel-Narrativ und Digitalwährungen skeptisch gegenüberstehen, hellhörig werden lassen – denn auch wenn Donald Trump im Rahmen seiner öffentlichen Auftritte gegen die Nachhaltigkeitsagenda wettert und der leitmediale Komplex seine entsprechenden Phrasen für Konterpropaganda nutzt, sprechen die Taten wieder einmal eine ganz andere Sprache. In Anbetracht vorgängig beschriebener Umstände sieht es nämlich nicht so aus, als widersetze sich der 47. US-Präsident dem Nachhaltigkeitskorporatismus der UN. Im Gegenteil.

»Der König ist tot, es lebe der König«. Die neue US-Regierung wird die gleiche Agenda fahren wie die alte – nur die Vermarktung ändert sich. Das kündigte Lynn Forester de Rothschild (CIC) schon vor über einem Jahr bei Bloomberg an. Genau wie Larry Fink (BlackRock).

Die Einführung biometrischer Massenüberwachung wird nun mit der Migrationskrise und drohendem Wahlbetrug, mit der Stärkung der Demokratie gerechtfertigt, anstatt mit einem Virus. Den Krieg in der Ukraine wird man nicht weiter unterstützen. Diesen Brandherd sollen die Europäer am Kokeln halten, damit man endlich den Iran und China ins Fadenkreuz nehmen kann. So ein dritter Weltkrieg wäre nämlich ein profitables Geschäft. Das Klimawandel-Narrativ wird man öffentlich negieren und verhöhnen, während die Agenda 2030 trotzdem umsetzt wird. Gleiches gilt für Totalüberwachung, Genderwahn, globale Gleichschaltung von Lerninhalten und die schleichende Digitalisierung des Weltfinanzsystems. Denn auch diese Programme werden von überstaatlichen Akteuren vorangetrieben und entziehen sich dem Einfluss nationaler Regierungen. So funktioniert Korporatismus.

Ernüchternd ist vor allem, dass sich die Bevölkerung, die in den letzten vier Jahren tatsächlich ein gewisses Maß an rebellischem Potenzial entwickelte, wieder einmal täuschen lässt. Trump-Hype wohin man schaut. Selbst die Corona-Dissidenten, selbst jene, die dem Staat aufgrund von Covid-Lügen, Green-Economy-Deindustrialisierung und militantem Neoimperialismus zusehends kritisch gegenüberstanden, haben sich in weiten Teilen von den leeren Versprechungen der MAGA-Promotion und ihren Sekundanten blenden lassen.

Sie werden genauso desillusioniert zurückbleiben wie einst die auf »Hope« geeichten Obama-Fans – und sich in ein paar Jahren vermutlich trotzdem wieder an die Wahlurne schleppen, weil sie auf den nächsten Erlöser hoffen, anstatt selbst die Welt zu verändern.

Zur Wahl stehen aber jeweils nur verschiedene Geschmacksrichtungen der gleichen, bitteren Pille Marke Unterdrückung. Keine Unterdrückung – das ist natürlich keine Option. Das steht nicht auf dem Wahlzettel.

Linke gegen Rechte, Demokraten gegen Republikaner, Christentum gegen Islam – Bevölkerungsgruppen, die man gegeneinander aufwiegeln kann, finden sich dagegen immer. Präsentiert man ihnen einen verheißungsvollen Erlöser, werden sie ihn unterstützen, um die andere Gruppe loszuwerden. Das ist Herrschaftsdialektik. Man bringt die Menschen dazu, um Dinge zu betteln, die ohnehin eingeführt werden sollen. Und der einzige Gewinner in diesem immer riskanter werdenden Spiel ist die Prädatorenkaste.

»Die mächtigste Waffe in den Händen der Unterdrücker ist der Geist der Unterdrückten.« (Stephen Bantu Biko)

Wer Donald Trump unterstützt, ist nicht für Frieden und Freiheit, sondern nur gegen das, was die andere Seite will. Denn Donald Trumps Interesse gilt nicht Frieden und Freiheit, sondern Donald Trump. So war es sein ganzes Leben lang.

@ 3d5b0dd4:1bb42b58

Knowledge Creation

Somewhat recently I have done a small amount of “adding knowledge into the world.” After a few months of building the business it became apparent that many of the problems I was facing had very few corresponding resources. These are niche problems solved by niche people. It turns out that building a hardware business is a quite niche activity.

Every knowledge domain can be broken down into smaller subdomains. Let’s say I am into US politics. There are 3 categories of political parties: Republican, Democrat, and Other. An extremely small percentage of total information about US politics covers the “Other” party. It looks like Joel Skousen is the official 3rd party candidate who received among the least amount of votes (12,618) for President in the most recent election. Here’s a list of his published books from the “About” page from his website:

1. Essential Principles for the Conservation of Liberty, 1984
2. The Secure Home--Architectural Design, Construction and Remodeling of Self-Sufficient Residences and Retreats, new edition now available.
3. How to Implement a High Security Shelter in the Home (1996),
4. Strategic Relocation--North American Guide to Safe Places (1998)
5. (In the works) Foundations of the Ideal State--a comprehensive treatise on government structure and practice, constitutional theory, and legal changes necessary to preserve liberty and justice.

There is almost no information on the internet about this man’s recent Presidential bid. What could be learned about independent publishing, the process of getting on election ballots, the intricacies of the various outsider parties, and the confluence of home safety and political theory, from diving into the details of this man’s (very) small role in the huge world of US politics? Mix that deep dive with your own unique perspective, and certainly SOMETHING novel and interesting would result.

Millan and Mano used this exact formula to huge success in their independent music blog. They wrote about unknown, independent musicians in (mostly) small markets (Milwaukee, New Orleans, etc), and discuss them with an academic, poetic, and explorative writing style that is unique among music journalists. They were regular guys and created new knowledge and ideas.

I think doing this is important. Or it just makes me feel important. Even if no one reads it at least I created new knowledge and it may help someone one day. Or more likely, the AI of the future. As Gwern recently said…

By writing, you are voting on the future of the Shoggoth using one of the few currencies it acknowledges: tokens it has to predict. If you aren't writing, you are abdicating the future or your role in it. If you think it's enough to just be a good citizen, to vote for your favorite politician, to pick up litter and recycle, the future doesn't care about you. ^1

So I am going to try do more of this independent small-time knowledge creation. My business had been hampering the newsletter anyways, since it had been consuming my life and most of the work could not be shared on a public website. I’m gonna try to write more regularly with deep dives on novel and interesting things instead of the standard newsletter.

@ 6734e11d:c7e34e8f

Bereits 2023 entdeckte der Genomforscher Kevin McKernan, dass die mRNA-Impfstoffe von Pfizer/BioNTech DNA-Fragmente enthalten.

Nun konnte er in einer Biopsie eines Darmkrebspatienten DNA-Sequenzen (SV40,Ori) des Pfizer-Impfstoffs nachweisen – und das ein Jahr nach der Impfung des Patienten.

👉McKernan (https://anandamide.substack.com/p/sv40-origin-of-replication-in-mammalian)

Die hohe Menge an nachgewiesener Impfstoff-DNA lässt darauf schließen, dass sich der Impfstoff nach der Injektion im Körper des Patienten vermehrt haben könnte, so McKernan. Dies würde entweder auf eine Integration in das menschliche Genom oder auf eine unerwartete Replikationsfähigkeit der Impfstoff-DNA hinweisen.

https://t.me/DrKayKlapproth

https://t.me/initiative_demokratie

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

questo.email

This was a thing done in a brief period I liked the idea of "indiewebcamp", a stupid movement of people saying everybody should have their site and post their lives in it.

From the GitHub postmortem:

questo.email was a service that integrated email addresses into the indieweb ecosystem by providing email-to-note and email-to-webmention triggers, which could be used for people to comment through webmention using their email addresses, and be replied, and also for people to send messages from their sites directly to the email addresses of people they knew; Questo also worked as an IndieAuth provider that used people's email addresses and Mozilla Persona.

It was live from December 2014 through December 2015.

Here's how the home page looked:

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/questo.email

See also

• jekmentions, another thing related to "indieweb"

@ 74e4eb50:d6662b8b

Über die Krise in der Kirche

Die katholische Kirche steckt in einer tiefen Krise, sagt einer ihrer größten Kritiker, der den Vatikan seit Jahrzehnten kennt und in diesem Jahr exkommuniziert worden ist.  Der (2024) exkommunizierte Erzbischof Carlo Maria Viganò ist einer der lautesten Kritiker des Heiligen Stuhls innerhalb der katholischen Kirche. Einige Tage vor Weihnachten sprach er in einem Interview über [...]

Der Beitrag Über die Krise in der Kirche (https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/ueber-die-krise-in-der-kirche/) erschien zuerst unter tkp.at (https://tkp.at).

Comments: https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/ueber-die-krise-in-der-kirche/#comments

https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/ueber-die-krise-in-der-kirche/

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Imagine a large public square, illuminated by intense spotlights, where every individual who dares to approach the center is immediately recognized, photographed, and cataloged. In this square, every word spoken becomes indelibly tied to its speaker. Under such conditions, many would hesitate before speaking, fearing not only the disapproval of the audience but also the potential punishments that could follow the mere act of expressing an idea. Now, imagine a second square, where anyone can cover their face with a mask, allowing their voice to echo without revealing their identity. It is in this second square that true freedom of expression flourishes, and this metaphorical mask represents anonymity.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/MweciiR21hySxjdsNa7u

In debates about freedom of expression—one of the fundamental pillars of democratic societies—anonymity often emerges as a controversial element. For some, it serves as a refuge for digital criminals or slanderers. For others, it is an indispensable tool, capable of protecting dissenting voices and inspiring authentic debates, with ideas judged on their merits rather than the messenger’s reputation. This article aims to explain, in a clear and instructive manner, why anonymity is essential to genuine freedom of expression, illustrating its value with metaphors, real-life examples, and historical references.

The Protective Mask: Avoiding Retaliation and Threats

Just as a navigator uses guiding instruments to avoid jagged rocks at sea, anonymity functions like a shield, allowing bold voices to navigate oppressive reefs without foundering. There are countless examples of individuals who have risked their lives to expose crimes and injustices—from whistleblowers in authoritarian governments to investigative journalists uncovering the complex machinations of organized crime. Without the possibility of anonymity, many of these stories would never have come to light.

Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other digital rights advocacy groups emphasize that the ability to speak without revealing one’s identity is crucial when the cost of speaking out is dangerously high. In censorship-ridden regimes, criticizing the government can lead to imprisonment, torture, or even death. Human rights activists, LGBTQIA+ communities in hostile countries, and journalists investigating illicit dealings all rely on anonymity to continue their work without putting their own lives at immediate risk. In this context, anonymity is not a whim—it’s the chance to survive one’s own opinion.

The Voice of the Invisible: Empowering Marginalized Groups

Think of anonymity as an invisible microphone placed at the disposal of those who, without it, would never dare to take the stage. Historically, marginalized groups have always faced additional barriers to making their voices heard. Women in patriarchal societies, ethnic minorities facing discrimination, or individuals persecuted for their sexual orientation find in anonymity a safe space to speak out, claim their rights, and share their experiences without fearing public humiliation or physical violence.

This “invisible microphone” not only gives voice to those who once remained silent but also transforms the arena of public debate into a more equitable space. By removing the link between idea and identity, it reduces the risk of immediate prejudice against the messenger. As a result, society can assess arguments more impartially. Here, ideas are judged on their content, not on the face that speaks them.

The Strength of History: The Precedent of the Federalist Papers

History offers a famous example of the power of anonymous words: the Federalist Papers. Published between 1787 and 1788, these essays supported the ratification of the United States Constitution and were written under the pseudonym “Publius” by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The reason for concealing their identities was clear: to ensure that their ideas would be judged on their argumentative strength rather than the prestige or fame of the authors.

The precedent set by the Federalist Papers is emblematic. It shows that, in the building of one of the first modern democracies, anonymity was used as a legitimate tool to establish fundamental concepts. If the founders of the nation that prides itself on its First Amendment—the one that protects freedom of expression—resorted to anonymity, we should recognize that this resource is not only defensible but also an essential part of the framework of healthy public debate.

Faceless Messages: The Democracy of Pure Ideas

In an ideal world, we would judge a message purely on its content. In reality, however, names, faces, social status, and economic position influence how we receive and interpret a person’s words. Anonymity removes these superficial layers, allowing the message to present itself bare, subject to rational evaluation without the veils of prejudice.

In this sense, anonymity acts as a “filter of equality”: by concealing the source, it prevents us from assigning credibility (or discredit) based on stereotypes, prejudices, or personal rivalries. Thus, ideas previously dismissed out of hand can now be heard with greater attention, opening paths to social innovation, political reflection, and challenges to the status quo. A contemporary example is online forums that allow anonymous posts. While we acknowledge that such spaces can be misused, we cannot ignore their potential to give voice to those who would never feel safe speaking under their own name in public.

Privacy, Intimacy, and the Freedom to Whisper

Anonymity is not limited to the public or political sphere. In personal and professional relations, the ability to speak anonymously can allow someone to seek help or reveal extremely sensitive matters. Imagine a patient who needs to consult a doctor about a stigmatized health issue, or a person seeking legal advice in a delicate situation. The “mask” of anonymity offers a safe haven for sharing information without the anguish of being judged or exposed.

Thus, anonymity also safeguards our “right to whisper,” that is, the ability to exchange information, secrets, and confessions without the constant glare of a spotlight. Real or perceived surveillance can stifle communication and inhibit creativity, reporting, and the exchange of ideas. By shielding individuals from forced exposure, anonymity reinforces the very fabric of freedom of expression, preventing the fear of identification from silencing words before they are spoken.

Anonymity in the Digital Age: Between Encryption and Censorship

In the digital age, the issue of anonymity becomes even more relevant. With the expansion of online surveillance and the growth of social networks, maintaining anonymity can be challenging. Social media platforms increasingly request personal data, and governments attempt to impose barriers against anonymity, often justifying them as measures of national security or crime prevention.

However, according to reports and documents from human rights organizations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), encryption and anonymity are key tools for freedom of expression in the digital environment. Without these resources, citizens and journalists, for instance, become more vulnerable to persecution. In various countries, the existence of anonymous and encrypted channels enables information to circulate, grievances to be reported, and societies to remain informed, even in the face of heavy censorship.

Legal Protection: Judicial Recognition of Anonymity

The United States Supreme Court, as well as other constitutional courts around the world, recognizes anonymity as an integral part of the right to free expression. In the United States, the First Amendment has been applied in cases that defended the right to anonymous speech, viewing it as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. When minorities are protected by anonymity, personal reprisals against those who dare to question dogmas or denounce abuses are prevented.

This judicial understanding reinforces the legitimacy of anonymity and its direct association with the strengthening of democracy. After all, a robust democracy requires not only the absence of formal censorship but also the guarantee that minority or unpopular voices can speak out without fear.

Conclusion: The Cloak That Protects Freedom

If freedom of expression is the heart of democracy, anonymity is the cloak that shields that heart from the poisoned darts of fear, persecution, and prejudice. It creates the right environment for ideas to flourish freely, for courageous voices to emerge from silence, and for society to debate its most complex issues in the light of reason rather than beneath the shadow of intimidation.

In a world where surveillance and political tensions are ever-present, anonymity preserves the essence of free speech: humanity’s ability to question, propose, denounce, criticize, and create without shackles. By recognizing the importance of this resource, we safeguard not only individual voices but also the very principle that makes democracy worthy of its name.

Selected References:

• Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

• Freedom Forum: https://www.freedomforum.org/anonymous-speech/

• Association for Progressive Communications (APC): https://www.apc.org/

• The First Amendment Encyclopedia: Anonymous Speech: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/anonymous-speech/

• The Federalist Papers: Historical context available at Library of Congress and various printed and digital compilations.

---

Cover Photo by Redd Francisco / Unsplash

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: Rumple

a payments network based on trust channels

This is the description of a Lightning-like network that will work only with credit or trust-based channels and exist alongside the normal Lightning Network. I imagine some people will think this is undesirable and at the same time very easy to do (such that if it doesn't exist yet it must be because no one cares), but in fact it is a very desirable thing -- which I hope I can establish below -- and at the same time a very non-trivial problem to solve, as the history of Ryan Fugger's Ripple project and posterior copies of it show.

Read these first to get the full context:

1. Ryan Fugger's Ripple
2. Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit
3. The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit
4. Parallel Chains

Explanation about the name

Since we're copying the fundamental Ripple idea from Ryan Fugger and since the name "Ripple" is now associated with a scam coin called XRP, and since Ryan Fugger has changed the name of his old website "Ripplepay" to "Rumplepay", we will follow his lead here. If "Ripplepay" was the name of a centralized prototype to the open peer-to-peer network "Ripple", now that the centralized version is called "Rumplepay" the peer-to-peer version must be called "Rumple".

Now the idea

Basically we copy the Lightning Network, but without HTLCs or channels being opened and closed with funds committed to them on multisig Bitcoin transactions published to the blockchain. Instead we use pure trust relationships like the original Ripple concept.

And we use the blockchain commit method, but instead of spending an absurd amount of money to use the actual Bitcoin blockchain instead we use a parallel chain.

How exactly -- a protocol proposal attempt

It could work like this:

The parallel chain, or "Rumple Chain"

1. We define a parallel chain with a genesis block;
2. Following blocks must contain a. the ID of the previous block; b. a list of up to 32768 entries of arbitrary 32-byte values; c. an ID constituted by sha256(the previous block ID + the merkle root of all the entries)
3. To be mined, each parallel block must be included in the Bitcoin chain according as explained above.

Now that we have a structure for a simple "blockchain" that is completely useless, just blocks over blocks of meaningless values, we proceed to the next step of assigning meaning to these values.

The off-chain payments network, or "Rumple Network"

1. We create a network of nodes that can talk to each other via TCP messages (all details are the same as the Lightning Network, except where mentioned otherwise);
2. These nodes can create trust channels to each other. These channels are backed by nothing except the willingness of one peer to pay the other what is owed.
3. When Alice creates a trust channel with Bob (Alice trusts Bob), contrary to what happens in the Lightning Network, it's A that can immediately receive payments through that channel, and everything A receives will be an IOU from Bob to Alice. So Alice should never open a channel to Bob unless Alice trusts Bob. But also Alice can choose the amount of trust it has in Bob, she can, for example, open a very small channel with Bob, which means she will only lose a few satoshis if Bob decides to exit scam her. (in the original Ripple examples these channels were always depicted as friend relationships, and they can continue being that, but it's expected -- given the experience of the Lightning Network -- that the bulk of the channels will exist between users and wallet provider nodes that will act as hubs).
4. As Alice receive a payment through her channel with Bob, she becomes a creditor and Bob a debtor, i.e., the balance of the channel moves a little to her side. Now she can use these funds to make payments over that channel (or make a payment that combines funds from multiple channels using MPP).
5. If at any time Alice decides to close her channel with Bob, she can send all the funds she has standing there to somewhere else (for example, another channel she has with someone else, another wallet somewhere else, a shop that is selling some good or service, or a service that will aggregate all funds from all her channels and send a transaction to the Bitcoin chain on her behalf).
6. If at any time Bob leaves the network Alice is entitled by Bob's cryptographic signatures to knock on his door and demand payment, or go to a judge and ask him to force Bob to pay, or share the signatures and commitments online and hurt Bob's reputation with the rest of the network (but yes, none of these things is good enough and if Bob is a very dishonest person none of these things is likely to save Alice's funds).

The payment flow

1. Suppose there exists a route Alice->Bob->Carol and Alice wants to send a payment to Carol.
2. First Alice reads an invoice she received from Carol. The invoice (which can be pretty similar or maybe even the same as BOLT11) contains a payment hash h and information about how to reach Carol's node, optionally an amount. Let's say it's 100 satoshis.
3. Using the routing information she gathered, Alice builds an onion and sends it to Bob, at the same time she offers to Bob a "conditional IOU". That stands for a signed commitment that Alice will owe Bob an 100 satoshis if in the next 50 blocks of the Rumple Chain there appears a block containing the preimage p such that sha256(p) == h.
4. Bob peels the onion and discovers that he must forward that payment to Carol, so he forwards the peeled onion and offers a conditional IOU to Carol with the same h. Bob doesn't know Carol is the final recipient of the payment, it could potentially go on and on.
5. When Carol gets the conditional IOU from Bob, she makes a list of all the nodes who have announced themselves as miners (which is not something I have mentioned before, but nodes that are acting as miners will must announce themselves somehow) and are online and bidding for the next Rumple block. Each of these miners will have previously published a random 32-byte value v they they intend to include in their next block.
6. Carol sends payments through routes to all (or a big number) of these miners, but this time the conditional IOU contains two conditions (values that must appear in a block for the IOU to be valid): p such that sha256(p) == h (the same that featured in the invoice) and v (which must be unique and constant for each miner, something that is easily verifiable by Carol beforehand). Also, instead of these conditions being valid for the next 50 blocks they are valid only for the single next block.
7. Now Carol broadcasts p to the mempool and hopes one of the miners to which she sent conditional payments sees it and, allured by the possibility of cashing in Carol's payment, includes p in the next block. If that does not happen, Carol can try again in the next block.

Why bother with this at all?

1. The biggest advantage of Lightning is its openness

   It has been said multiple times that if trust is involved then we don't need Lightning, we can use Coinbase, or worse, Paypal. This is very wrong. Lightning is good specially because it serves as a bridge between Coinbase, Paypal, other custodial provider and someone running their own node. All these can transact freely across the network and pay each other without worrying about who is in which provider or setup.

   Rumple inherits that openness. In a Rumple Network anyone is free to open new trust channels and immediately route payments to anyone else.

   Also, since Rumple payments are also based on the reveal of a preimage it can do swaps with Lightning inside a payment route from day one (by which I mean one can pay from Rumple to Lightning and vice-versa).

2. Rumple fixes Lightning's fragility

   Lightning is too fragile.

   It's known that Lightning is vulnerable to multiple attacks -- like the flood-and-loot attack, for example, although not an attack that's easy to execute, it's still dangerous even if failed. Given the existence of these attacks, it's important to not ever open channels with random anonymous people. Some degree of trust must exist between peers.

   But one does not even have to consider attacks. The creation of HTLCs is a liability that every node has to do multiple times during its life. Every initiated, received or forwarded payment require adding one HTLC then removing it from the commitment transaction.

   Another issue that makes trust needed between peers is the fact that channels can be closed unilaterally. Although this is a feature, it is also a bug when considering high-fee environments. Imagine you pay $2 in fees to open a channel, your peer may close that unilaterally in the next second and then you have to pay another $15 to close the channel. The opener pays (this is also a feature that can double as a bug by itself). Even if it's not you opening the channel, a peer can open a channel with you, make a payment, then clone the channel, and now you're left with, say, an output of 800 satoshis, which is equal to zero if network fees are high.

   So you should only open channels with people you know and know aren't going to actively try to hack you and people who are not going to close channels and impose unnecessary costs on you. But even considering a fully trusted Lightning Network, even if -- to be extreme -- you only opened channels with yourself, these channels would still be fragile. If some HTLC gets stuck for any reason (peer offline or some weird small incompatibility between node softwares) and you're forced to close the channel because of that, there are the extra costs of sweeping these UTXO outputs plus the total costs of closing and reopening a channel that shouldn't have been closed in the first place. Even if HTLCs don't get stuck, a fee renegotiation event during a mempool spike may cause channels to force-close, become valueless or settle for very high closing fee.

   Some of these issues are mitigated by Eltoo, others by only having channels with people you trust. Others referenced above, plus the the griefing attack and in general the ability of anyone to spam the network for free with payments that can be pending forever or a lot of payments fail repeatedly makes it very fragile.

   Rumple solves most of these problems by not having to touch the blockchain at all. Fee negotiation makes no sense. Opening and closing channels is free. Flood-and-loot is a non-issue. The griefing attack can be still attempted as funds in trust channels must be reserved like on Lightning, but since there should be no theoretical limit to the number of prepared payments a channel can have, the griefing must rely on actual amounts being committed, which prevents large attacks from being performed easily.

3. Rumple fixes Lightning's unsolvable reputation issues

   In the Lightning Conference 2019, Rusty Russell promised there would be pre-payments on Lightning someday, since everybody was aware of potential spam issues and pre-payments would be the way to solve that. Fast-forward to November 2020 and these pre-payments have become an apparently unsolvable problem[^thread-402]: no one knows how to implement them reliably without destroying privacy completely or introducing worse problems.

   Replacing these payments with tables of reputation between peers is also an unsolved problem[^reputation-lightning], for the same reasons explained in the thread above.

4. Rumple solves the hot wallet problem

   Since you don't have to use Bitcoin keys or sign transactions with a Rumple node, only your channel trust is at risk at any time.

5. Rumple ends custodianship

   Since no one is storing other people's funds, a big hub or wallet provider can be used in multiple payment routes, but it cannot be immediately classified as a "custodian". At best, it will be a big debtor.

6. Rumple is fun

   Opening channels with strangers is boring. Opening channels with friends and people you trust even a little makes that relationship grow stronger and the trust be reinforced. (But of course, like it happens in the Lightning Network today, if Rumple is successful the bulk of trust will be from isolated users to big reliable hubs.)

Questions or potential issues

1. So many advantages, yes, but trusted? Custodial? That's easy and stupid!

   Well, an enormous part of the current Lightning Network (and also onchain Bitcoin wallets) already rests on trust, mainly trust between users and custodial wallet providers like ZEBEDEE, Alby, Wallet-of-Satoshi and others. Worse: on the current Lightning Network users not only trust, they also expose their entire transaction history to these providers[^hosted-channels].

   Besides that, as detailed in point 3 of the previous section, there are many unsolvable issues on the Lightning protocol that make each sovereign node dependent on some level of trust in its peers (and the network in general dependent on trusting that no one else will spam it to death).

   So, given the current state of the Lightning Network, to trust peers like Rumple requires is not a giant change -- but it is still a significant change: in Rumple you shouldn't open a large trust channel with someone just because it looks trustworthy, you must personally know that person and only put in what you're willing to lose. In known brands that have reputation to lose you can probably deposit more trust, same for long-term friends, and that's all. Still it is probably good enough, given the existence of MPP payments and the fact that the purpose of Rumple is to be a payments network for day-to-day purchases and not a way to buy real estate.

2. Why would anyone run a node in this parallel chain?

   I don't know. Ideally every server running a Rumple Network node will be running a Bitcoin node and a Rumple chain node. Besides using it to confirm and publish your own Rumple Network transactions it can be set to do BMM mining automatically and maybe earn some small fees comparable to running a Lightning routing node or a JoinMarket yield generator.

   Also it will probably be very lightweight, as pruning is completely free and no verification-since-the-genesis-block will take place.

3. What is the maturity of the debt that exists in the Rumple Network or its legal status?

   By default it is to be understood as being payable on demand for payments occurring inside the network (as credit can be used to forward or initiate payments by the creditor using that channel). But details of settlement outside the network or what happens if one of the peers disappears cannot be enforced or specified by the network.

   Perhaps some standard optional settlement methods (like a Bitcoin address) can be announced and negotiated upon channel creation inside the protocol, but nothing more than that.

[^thread-402]: Read at least the first 10 messages of the thread to see how naïve proposals like you and me could have thought about are brought up and then dismantled very carefully by the group of people most committed to getting Lightning to work properly. [^reputation-lightning]: See also the footnote at Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit. [^hosted-channels]: Although that second part can be solved by hosted channels.

@ 3d5b0dd4:1bb42b58

Knowledge Creation

Somewhat recently I have done a small amount of “adding knowledge into the world.” After a few months of building the business it became apparent that many of the problems I was facing had very few corresponding resources. These are niche problems solved by niche people. It turns out that building a hardware business is a quite niche activity.

Every knowledge domain can be broken down into smaller subdomains. Let’s say I am into US politics. There are 3 categories of political parties: Republican, Democrat, and Other. An extremely small percentage of total information about US politics covers the “Other” party. It looks like Joel Skousen is the official 3rd party candidate who received among the least amount of votes (12,618) for President in the most recent election. Here’s a list of his published books from the “About” page from his website:

1. Essential Principles for the Conservation of Liberty, 1984
2. The Secure Home--Architectural Design, Construction and Remodeling of Self-Sufficient Residences and Retreats, new edition now available.
3. How to Implement a High Security Shelter in the Home (1996),
4. Strategic Relocation--North American Guide to Safe Places (1998)
5. (In the works) Foundations of the Ideal State--a comprehensive treatise on government structure and practice, constitutional theory, and legal changes necessary to preserve liberty and justice.

There is almost no information on the internet about this man’s recent Presidential bid. What could be learned about independent publishing, the process of getting on election ballots, the intricacies of the various outsider parties, and the confluence of home safety and political theory, from diving into the details of this man’s (very) small role in the huge world of US politics? Mix that deep dive with your own unique perspective, and certainly SOMETHING novel and interesting would result.

Millan and Mano used this exact formula to huge success in their independent music blog. They wrote about unknown, independent musicians in (mostly) small markets (Milwaukee, New Orleans, etc), and discuss them with an academic, poetic, and explorative writing style that is unique among music journalists. They were regular guys and created new knowledge and ideas.

I think doing this is important. Or it just makes me feel important. Even if no one reads it at least I created new knowledge and it may help someone one day. Or more likely, the AI of the future. As Gwern recently said…

By writing, you are voting on the future of the Shoggoth using one of the few currencies it acknowledges: tokens it has to predict. If you aren't writing, you are abdicating the future or your role in it. If you think it's enough to just be a good citizen, to vote for your favorite politician, to pick up litter and recycle, the future doesn't care about you. ^1

So I am going to try do more of this independent small-time knowledge creation. My business had been hampering the newsletter anyways, since it had been consuming my life and most of the work could not be shared on a public website. I’m gonna try to write more regularly with deep dives on novel and interesting things instead of the standard newsletter.

@ 826e9f89:ffc5c759

_Prologue: this is a prose adaptation of a talk I gave to a private audience in Dubai and then tweaked slightly for a small conference in Sofia. I'm increasingly thinking it deserves a more general audience, and may be better suited to text anyway. This is probably not its final form, as the desired audience is tradfi capital allocators, hence a PDF is likely on the cards in the near future. For the time being, consider this a first draft, practising what it might look like as prose, and soliciting feedback from the good people of Nostr. Enjoy! _

The title of this essay means absolutely nothing. There is no such thing as “Web π” because there is no such thing as “Web 3”. It’s bullshit. It’s a scam.

Unfortunately, it has turned out to be extremely powerful bullshit and an extremely profitable scam, and so my goal in writing this essay is to give the reader the tools to navigate all of this and come out the other side without having been scammed or bullshat. In the spirit of not scamming and not bullshitting, I should be clear upfront about the intended readership of this essay, who I am to write it, and who it’s really about.

Who Are You?

I assume the reader is not a shadowy super-coder, but rather is a financial professional. This essay isn’t really for Bitcoiners, although if any read it, I hope they still find it interesting. Who I am really writing for are people coming to the space for the first time. Hopefully in your mind you are coming to the _Bitcoin _space, but if you think you are coming to the “crypto” space then this may be even more useful.

Who Am I?

I am the founder of a company that makes me not only highly biased but also flagrantly self-interested in the content I am promoting. I run a firm that invests in the Bitcoin ecosystem through a variety of different vehicles. I am not going to mislead you in the slightest in that my primary motivation is for you to allocate capital to us rather than to people I would call scammers and bullshitters. You should listen to them too and make up your own mind, or else what’s the point, really? How do you know I’m not scamming or bullshitting you? Exactly. Don’t trust. Verify.

In any case, that’s all assuming you want to “allocate capital” at all rather than just buy Bitcoin without a management fee. I’d like to think the primary difference is that I will be honest about that, and I’ll encourage you to understand as much as you can about what is going on and what you are doing (and if you are at all unsure, I would suggest you aren’t ready and you should just buy Bitcoin and learn) rather than bamboozle you with complete nonsense like “Web 3”.

Who Is This About?

It’s not at all about people working in crypto. Bitcoiners amongst the readership may be mildly irritated by me going on to give about as charitable an explanation of the role of these people as they have probably ever heard from somebody like me. This is really about financiers. It’s about the people who have used the mostly unrewarded efforts of developers, academics, entrepreneurs, and so on to siphon money from you to themselves, leaving a trail of useless tech and defrauded retail investors in their wake – and who will continue to do so if you continue to empower them.

Why This Essay?

We are at an interesting point in the development of the entirety of the “crypto” industry and I strongly suggest that people like you are going to be pitched all kinds of scams and bullshit in the coming months and years. If you have a little more background on what these people are really talking about, you will hopefully be able to avoid it.

My plan to help with that is presenting a short version and a long version of what blockchains are and are for, how they have historically been deployed in service of scams and bullshit, a high-level theory explaining the narrative evolution behind this sorry history, and a prediction for the near-term future of such shenanigans.

What is a Blockchain For?

A Blockchain is for sound, censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer digital money. It is not for anything else. If a blockchain is functional as money, it may be possible to also _use it _for other things. Some people find that interesting, some people find it infuriating, but don’t let that subtlety confuse you. It is not _for _arbitrary computation and storage or “decentralizing the internet” or running illegal securities rackets.

It is for money, plain and simple.

How does it achieve that? Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment. These are the innovations from which every other desirable property or feature flows. Proof of work enables censorship resistance. If somebody is trying to sell you on “proof of stake”: bullshit. The difficulty adjustment enables precise, predetermined, and _fair _issuance. If somebody is trying to sell you on a token they issue for free and without restriction: scam.

The problem Bitcoin solves is both economic and technical and the solution has material technical and economic merit. And it’s for this very specific and irreplicable reason the Bitcoin token has value. If this all sounds extreme to you, then I would suggest that your understanding of the topic is _extremely _misguided, that you are going to be _extremely bullshat and extremely scammed, _and you need to read this essay. That’s the short version.

The Long Version

I am sensitive to how extreme this all sounds. After all, hundreds of billions of dollars have been pumped into crypto, not Bitcoin – a huge amount of it is widely used, and many capable, honest, and brilliant people work in the industry. The reader will recall just above I said those people are not the target of my criticism. I’m not claiming they are all scammers and bullshitters. Sadly, I think it’s more likely they have been scammed and bullshat to some degree also.

I think I have some credibility in pointing this out because, as a VC in the Bitcoin space, I have increasingly seen founders telling me this themselves: that they originally bought into the hype in crypto and ended up wasting an enormous amount of time realizing their idea made no technical or economic sense in that context, so then they came to Bitcoin instead. You hear this one time and it’s an anecdote, but you hear it as many times as I have and it feels more like a representative sample.

What I want to cover next is as charitable a summary of the state of ex-Bitcoin crypto as I possibly can: my contention is that crypto has evolved into 4 rough categories: stablecoins, cryptography R&D, gambling, and scams. And these aren’t exclusive, to be clear; there is a lot of overlap, and, in fact, the overlap is arguably the key.

Scams

Scams are tokens, plain and simple. If somebody is trying to profit from the speculative price action of a token they have issued, they are scamming somebody. Maybe they are scamming you, maybe they are scamming retail investors, maybe they are scamming customers or suppliers – if such parties even exist in their cargo cult “business model”. There’s a scam in there somewhere.

However, it is rarely _just _a scam. There will almost always be components of stablecoins, R&D or gambling too. Hence these are worth really grappling with, taking seriously, giving credit to the extent it is due, but also analyzing critically.

My rough and high-level assessment of this breakdown of crypto is as follows, and I’ll explain what I mean by this below: stablecoins have economic merit but dubious technical merit; R&D has technical merit but no economic merit; and gambling sort of has merit but it depends how you interpret it. Obviously, scams have neither.

Stablecoins

By “sort of technical merit” I mean that stablecoins have central issuers. You can issue them as tokens on a blockchain but there’s not really much of a point. The issuer could just run a database connected to the internet with some straightforward signature schemes for transfers and it would make minimal operational difference. In fact, it would be cheaper and faster. _In fact, _you may as well run a Chaumian eCash mint (a decades-old innovation recently resurrected firmly within the _Bitcoin _space) such that your cheaper-and-faster-than-a-blockchain database also grants users transience and privacy rather than the public permanence of a blockchain.

The fact Tron is the most heavily used for stablecoins, in terms of settling the most value, is a testament to this point: it is barely even pretending not to be a database. This works as regulatory arbitrage given regulators think this is “innovation” because they are stupid.

That said, it is worth giving some credit here given the abject awfulness of fiat banking and payment rails with which stablecoins arguably most directly compete. Stablecoins are significantly more permissionless in their transfer than any fiat bank liability. And to attest to what seems like their most significant use case, they are permissionless in their _usership _in that only an internet connection and the right software is required rather than various discriminatory jurisdictional and compliance criteria.

However, what “sort of technical merit” ultimately boils down to, especially in comparison to Bitcoin, is: highly censorable in their exogenous links and, therefore, their value. The assets supposedly backing stablecoins are (by definition) still within the fiat system, even if this novel transfer mechanism of the rights to withdraw them is not. There is frankly a bit of theatre involved in the so-called “decentralization” of stablecoins given shutting down the central issuer is all that is required to make the permissionlessly tradeable decentralized tokens go to zero and be technically unimpeded but functionally useless. The technical innovation of Bitcoin, in contrast, is easily understood in one sense as it being totally indifferent to this kind of attack.

On the other hand, by “economic merit” I mean that they are extremely widely used and valued as a means of providing dollar shadow banking and often superior payment rails. Those in crypto often love pointing to this and many Bitcoiners tie themselves in knots trying to explain it away, whereas I see it as essentially unrelated to Bitcoin. Clearly there is a superficial connection, but you could create any superficial connection by “tokenizing” things for no particularly good technical _reason. I think it’s a different industry entirely. It’s more like a subindustry within _fintech – part banking, part payments – that for the time being relies on bamboozling regulators with all the nonsense I’m drawing attention to.

And good for them, frankly. If fiat banking isn’t going to be backed by real money anyway, then it _at least _ought to be permissionless. It should really be Chaumian eCash if it isn’t just Bitcoin, and it is regulation alone that makes it so awful in the first place. Making money usable and not a tool of dystopian control is, at this point, a political problem, not a technical one. Stablecoins are frankly a step in the right direction, especially insofar as they acclimatize users to digital assets. But I would still caution that they arguably don’t have sufficient technical merit to withstand what feels like an inevitable political attack …

Cryptography R&D

“Technical merit” for R&D is more or less self-explanatory, but the context is worth appreciating. It’s only really in crypto and mostly in Ethereum more specifically that people can permissionlessly experiment with arbitrarily complex cryptographic schemes that operate on real, enormous value. There are a lot of people who understandably find this attractive given their projects are essentially academic and trying out their ideas in the wild is more interesting, arguably more worthwhile, and certainly more fun than putting research essays on ArXiv or submitting them to a journal.

But … the value being manipulated is at best stablecoins and at worst baseless hype. If it isn’t a stablecoin then it probably exists in the first place because of either gambling or scams – and even there the line is very blurry.

Gambling

Gambling is an interesting lens to adopt on all this because it’s literally a trillion-dollar industry. And it’s real. It’s consensual; it’s not criminal; it’s legitimate economic activity that generates enormous profits for those who facilitate it well.

So, gambling has economic merit in that sense. But it’s tricky in this context how to characterize it because you could also argue it’s deeply dishonest gambling in that the gamblers don’t realize they are playing a negative sum game against the house. They think they are doing something akin to speculating on securities, which may be just as stupid depending on how it’s done, but at least has real economic utility and contributes to capital formation.

The difference here is that what is being speculated on _has no economic merit. _So, if that’s your gauge of merit, then here there is none. And it’s a very blurry line between this and an outright scam. Maybe the people involved _think _of what they are doing as amazing R&D, and maybe it’s inadvertently just a scam; maybe they know it’s all nonsense, but they think they can profit within the negative sum game because there are greater fools. In any case, I think gambling is a very helpful characterization of a lot of the behavior of the users and the real economic function of the industry.

There’s an interesting social component to all this because crypto people will often get mad at Bitcoiners because Bitcoiners tend not to care about either stablecoins or crypto R&D: they’ll say, why don’t you like stablecoins, they have clear economic merit? And the answer is they have dubious technical merit. Or, why don’t you like our next-gen Zero Knowledge scaling protocol, it has clear technical merit? And the answer is it has no economic merit.

If you’re happy with one but not the other, it’s easy to think of Bitcoiners as being closed-minded or dogmatic or whatever, but, ultimately, I think it’s just about discipline. What’s the point in being excited by something that half works, and that you know why will never fully work? So to be frank, a lot of this may be well-intentioned, but it’s kinda’ bullshit. It very probably ultimately rests on gambling and not at all whatever its stated purpose is … or it’s just a scam.

How Did We Get Here?

The following is by no means exhaustive and the framing is deliberately a little tongue-in-cheek. As well as being accurate enough (if unavoidably biased), my goal here is primarily to set up my prediction for what is coming next.

2015               reality: Ethereum launches             narrative: “the world computer”

In 2015, Ethereum launched. The narrative here was that we are building “the world computer” and we can now have decentralized uncensorable computation. Never mind that anybody with a laptop has an uncensorable and decentralized computing device. And keep in mind this question of, “_what data might it ever be relevant to compute over in this manner (whatever that means in the first place)?” _The answer will become clearer and clearer …

2016-17          reality: ICO bubble                           narrative: “Web 3” / “DApps”

Regardless, at the end of 2015 we get the proposal and adoption of ERC20: a standard for issuing fungible tokens within Ethereum contracts, which is why in 2016 _but especially in 2017 _we get the ICO bubble. The narrative changes. Now we are concerned with “Web 2” companies being huge, powerful, and centralized. What if, instead, users could cooperatively own the application, control their own data, and participate in the economic upside that their usage is creating?

2018-19          reality: crypto winter                       narrative: “mistakes were made”

In 2018 this all falls apart, so don’t worry about it, moving on …

2020-21          reality: defi summer                        narrative: “decentralized finance”

By 2020 the narrative was different once again. It is more or less realized by this point that utility tokens make no technical or economic sense. You can’t introduce artificial scarcity in capital goods where there should be abundance and deflation and expect anybody to care, never mind to value your concoction. On the other hand, “securities” ought to be scarce and in some sense ought to function as tradeable ledger entries. Maybe they could be tokenized and computed on in a censorship-resistant and decentralized manner?

So, we get a boom in “defi” which, for what it’s worth, fellow Axiom co-founder Anders Larson and I predicted in our essay Only The Strong Survive, in September 2021, would be a complete disaster because, amongst a myriad of other illiterate insanities, there was approximately zero grounding of these securities in productive capital. The ecosystem was entirely self-referential – grounded _not even _in the questionable economic merit of stablecoins but firmly in gambling and scams; in leverage, rehypothecation, and securitization of precisely nothing whatsoever productive.

2022               reality: shitcoinpocalypse                narrative: “mistakes were made”

And we were absolutely right because in 2022 everything collapsed. First Terra/Luna imploded – a “defi” project which essentially presented to the world the argument that a fractional reserve bank issuing fiduciary media can literally never go bankrupt because it can always cover a deposit shortfall by issuing more equity. While briefly flirting with a capitalization of around fifty f***ing billion dollars, and endorsed and fawned over by all manner of illiterate charlatans with gigantic and unsuspecting audiences, this argument was eventually rejected by the market as utterly imbecilic, as analyzed by myself and Nic Carter in All Falls Down.

This triggered a credit contagion that soon after took down 3 Arrows Capital, Celsius, Voyager, BlockFi, and others. FTX limped along by what we now understand to be something like defrauding their way out of debt, but eventually also collapsed later that year. If _Only The Strong Survive _was a pre-mortem of all of this, then the reader may want to read Green Eggs And Ham, also by myself and Anders Larson, as a kind of post-mortem.

2023-today    reality: Bitcoin multisigs                  narrative: “Bitcoin renaissance”

And now a lot of this stuff is moving to Bitcoin. It is outside the scope of this essay to explain this in much detail but there have been a handful of developments in Bitcoin recently which, regardless of their intended purpose, seem to have as a collective side effect that a lot of these same shenanigans can now be implemented (or can _pretend _to be implemented) in a more Bitcoin-native context.

So, the new narrative is something like:

“these things didn’t work, not because they are terrible ideas that collapse to moon math wrappers around gambling and scams under any remotely critical analysis, but rather because they weren’t on Bitcoin. But also, since it has only recently become possible to (at least pretend to) implement them on Bitcoin, they are now worthwhile. We have wandered in the wilderness but learned our lessons and found the promised land.”

Technical and Economic Merit

Let’s consider all this through the lens of technical and economic merit once again. Or rather, the alleged merit given the stated goal. Ignore for now whether there is any merit:

2015               technical goal: new computing paradigm               economic goal: x% of GDP?

The original idea of “crypto” allegedly has the merit of the next revolution in computing. Goodness knows how big that market is; probably a decent chunk of global GDP – if it meant anything, which it doesn’t.

2016-17          technical goal: disrupting company formation       economic goal: y% of S&P?

ICOs then become a little bit more specific. Now they are merely disrupting how we organize companies. What’s that worth? Some portion of the value of the companies that can now be decentralized and tokenized I guess? Who knows …

2018-19          nothing to see here

Nothing happened then, don’t worry about it.

2020-21          technical goal: decentralize finance            economic goal: z% of NYSE, CME, ISDA?

Defi becomes more specific again. Now we are merely tokenizing financial contracts, expanding access, removing middlemen, and so on. So that should probably be worth some percentage of capital markets activity?

2022               nothing to see here

Oops, never mind …

2023-today    technical goal: now it’s on Bitcoin!             economic goal: i% of … Bitcoin?

… and now it’s on Bitcoin apparently.

In Hindsight ...

I think the most amusing analysis of all this is as follows: it starts off completely insane, it gets more and more restrained each time – you could cheekily argue it starts to make more and more sense – but it also gets closer to Bitcoin every time. It’s clearly narrowing in on just: Bitcoin.

This is people realizing, painfully, over decades, what blockchains are for! They are not for “decentralizing everything” They are for censorship-resistant, sound, peer-to-peer digital money.

And I think this is _also _why we get the current state of crypto from earlier in the essay. As it starts to make more and more sense (by getting closer and closer to Bitcoin) you have realizations like the following: digital gift vouchers for artificially scarce and extremely expensive computation aren’t money, so we need “real money” in here for it to have economic merit, so you get stablecoins. Also, well we have a rich programming environment that seems technically interesting but also the severe technical handicap of being unable to do even a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of all the computations in the world, so you get crypto R&D. These emerge as a kind of patch, and they have _some _merit in isolation, whereas the long-term trajectory is actually just to converge on Bitcoin.

It’s an open and fascinating question if there are any learnings from these that can still be transplanted to Bitcoin. For stablecoins, this strikes me as less clear, given the dubious technical merit is introduced by using a blockchain at all, not just a blockchain other than Bitcoin. However, efforts to create Bitcoin balances (tokenized or otherwise) that are stable relative to some external price are to be applauded, if still heavily scrutinized for what technical merit they _really _have.

It seems far more likely that crypto R&D will prove useful in a Bitcoin context to some or other degree, and in this case the economic merit is in fact solved by moving to Bitcoin, provided the necessary technical merit can be mimicked. At the time of writing, this is a source of both hope and dread: hope given the possibility of viable avenues of development (although still highly uncertain); dread given how early steps in this direction are already being misrepresented in the pursuit of bullshit and scams. I will return to both shortly.

Narrative Evolution

Back to the table just above, I want to make three quick observations that tie together my entire argument and get us to the end of the essay:

Firstly, the bubbles always follow the price of Bitcoin. Hopefully I don’t need to include a price chart for the reader to grasp this immediately.

Secondly, it’s important that the narrative always changes. Absolutely ungodly amounts of money were raised for this crap following the_ Bitcoin bull runs of 2017 and 2021. The people doing this couldn’t point to the previous absolute disaster, so they had to spin something along the lines of: “_we learned our lessons and we’ve refined the use case.” This should sound familiar from just above.

Thirdly, however, regardless of whatever refinement they’ve come up with, the consequence of the new “narrative” is always, “buy my token”.

Always.

It doesn’t matter what buzzword salad is in the middle. It’s always “Bitcoin is cool, xyz, fughayzi fughahzi, buy my token.”

This is why I am very much tempted to not care so much about developers, academics, entrepreneurs, and so on, and in fact for my null hypothesis to be that they are more likely to have been victims than perpetrators. I don’t think they even end up in a position to contribute without the key group whom I do blame. When you put all these pieces together, what I think falls out of this analysis is as follows:

The entire cycle of shitcoinery can be traced to unscrupulous financiers convincing capital allocators who don’t know any better, in a bull market that, yes, Bitcoin is cool, but what they are doing is related, cooler, and that they deserve a fee.

Let us label this the Capital Cycle Theory of Shitcoinery. I think that everything else about which one might want to complain is downstream of this core realization.

Avoiding It

Given everything I’ve covered this is simple and this is pretty much the end of the essay.

You need to be aware of why this is happening now. If it hasn’t happened to you already (intended readership in the capital allocation business, that is) I guarantee it’s about to: with ETFs and the halving just past, we seem to be starting a Bitcoin bull run, these people have already raised ridiculous amounts of money on scams and bullshit that have mostly imploded. They may have lost a lot of money, or they may even have dumped on retail and got an excellent “return”. But in any case, they need a new narrative.

It's _possible _they have a viable narrative around stablecoins, R&D, both, and that they are as wary of scams as I have suggested here that they should be. I don’t want to insult anybody who merely has a different investment thesis to me if they are otherwise reasonable in their outlook and honest in their dealings.

However, if they are only now realizing how pointless and disingenuous every preceding crypto narrative has been after 7 years and hundreds of billions of dollars – or if they still don’t realize it at all; if their track record shows they were deeply involved, handsomely rewarded, and yet created nothing of lasting value; if they say things like “the builders are coming back to Bitcoin”: be very, very suspicious. Be on the lookout for tokens, which is to say, be on the lookout for scams.

What is especially frustrating is that the technical spin of the "layer twos" that are all the rage at the time of writing, that "the builders are coming back to Bitcoin" to build, and that you, the capital-allocating reader, will almost certainly be pitched, is in and of itself pretty reasonable. They just don't require tokens and they don't require gambling to support the token prices. What they do require is _sound adherence to Bitcoin's technical and economic merit. _At the very least, they require honest communication about the design trade-offs so far and planned for, and what, if any, economic and technical merit is left over after these trade-offs have been made.

Narrative aside, the _reality _of 99% of these projects is that they are private execution environments tied to multisigs custodying user deposits. Which is to say, on the one hand, that they are cargo culting "crypto R&D" from Ethereum that isn't technically possible in Bitcoin in order to feign technical merit, and on the other, that _they aren't layer twos at all. _Once again, they may as well be Chaumian eCash mints, except for the fact that this would make the intended token scam all but impossible to pull off.

Casey Rodarmor, creator of the Ordinals protocol, recently joked on the Hell Money _podcast he co-hosts, responding to the idea that "_everybody is building an L2 now":

"It's the same sad sack playbook as on Ethereum being recapitulated on Bitcoin. That's how you get a VC check on Ethereum. They are all glorified multisigs, so they are like, "hey let's port our glorified multisig to Bitcoin and get a VC check." I was talking to a friend of mine who is working on an interesting project, an open-source analyzer that does transaction clustering, and I was like, "maybe you could do this in this way and raise some VC money," and he said, "yeah, okay, but what's the point in raising VC money?" And I said, "no, no, no, this is the end! This is the goal! You raise VC money and then you cut yourself checks from that VC money until it runs out and then you raise more at a 10x valuation. This is the new economy, guys!"

The 1% that are legitimately trying to bring the learnings from crypto R&D to Bitcoin in a technically and economically sound manner will hopefully win in the long run (and even this is somewhat speculative at the time of writing) but will likely get little to no attention amidst this bull market flurry of scams and bullshit.

Axiom will do its best to source and invest in these companies (we already have!) but we are resigned to it being a much more difficult sell to capital allocators in light of the Capital Cycle Theory of Shitcoinery. To be brutally honest, this entire essay can fairly be considered cope on my part in light of having lost this battle in the past and facing up to the very real prospect of losing it in the near future too. Oh well, at least I tried.

Wrapping Up

The essence of the Capital Cycle Theory of Shitcoinery is that the problems I’ve described ultimately come from bamboozling people just like you with technical sounding nonsense like “Web 3” so you think it’s all a lot more complicated than it really is. Just buy Bitcoin. That’s certainly the first thing you should do anyway, and it might be the only thing you ever need to do.

If you really, really want to take the extra risk of investing in the Bitcoin ecosystem, the team at Axiom would be happy to speak with you. But we are never going to talk you out of buying Bitcoin. There is no world in which Bitcoin does poorly and we do well, or in which we promise something “better than Bitcoin,” and there’s no point in engaging with us at all if you don’t already believe most of this.

If that’s of interest to you, we’d love to talk. If not, just buy Bitcoin. In any case: fair warning, we are heading into a Bitcoin bull market and the scams and the bullshit are coming. Good luck avoiding them.

Allen Farrington, June 2024

@ 4523be58:ba1facd0

NIP-116

Event paths

Description

Event kind 30079 denotes an event defined by its event path rather than its event kind.

The event directory path is included in the event path, specified in the event's d tag. For example, an event path might be user/profile/name, where user/profile is the directory path.

Relays should parse the event directory from the event path d tag and index the event by it. Relays should support "directory listing" of kind 30079 events using the #f filter, such as {"#f": ["user/profile"]}.

For backward compatibility, the event directory should also be saved in the event's f tag (for "folder"), which is already indexed by some relay implementations, and can be queried using the #f filter.

Event content should be a JSON-encoded value. An empty object {} signifies that the entry at the event path is itself a directory. For example, when saving user/profile/name: Bob, you should also save user/profile: {} so the subdirectory can be listed under user.

In directory names, slashes should be escaped with a double slash.

Example

Event

json { "tags": [ ["d", "user/profile/name"], ["f", "user/profile"] ], "content": "\"Bob\"", "kind": 30079, ... }

Query

json { "#f": ["user/profile"], "authors": ["[pubkey]"] }

Motivation

To make Nostr an "everything app," we need a sustainable way to support new kinds of applications. Browsing Nostr data by human-readable nested directories and paths rather than obscure event kind numbers makes the data more manageable.

Numeric event kinds are not sustainable for the infinite number of potential applications. With numeric event kinds, developers need to find an unused number for each new application and announce it somewhere, which is cumbersome and not scalable.

Directories can also replace monolithic list events like follow lists or profile details. You can update a single directory entry such as user/profile/name or groups/follows/[pubkey] without causing an overwrite of the whole profile or follow list when your client is out-of-sync with the most recent list version, as often happens on Nostr.

Using d-tagged replaceable events for reactions, such as {tags: [["d", "reactions/[eventId]"]], content: "\"👍\"", kind: 30079, ...} would make un-reacting trivial: just publish a new event with the same d tag and an empty content. Toggling a reaction on and off would not cause a flurry of new reaction & delete events that all need to be persisted.

Implementations

• Relays that support tag-replaceable events and indexing by arbitrary tags (in this case f) already support this feature.
• IrisDB client side library: treelike data structure with subscribable nodes.

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1266

@ 16d11430:61640947

In the early days of the internet, browsers were hailed as the universal tool that could bridge the gap between diverse operating systems, enabling access to a single platform for all. The World Wide Web was, for a while, the great equalizer. However, as web technologies evolved, so did the complexity and bloat within the browser. What was once a simple gateway to the internet has now become a lumbering beast, weighed down by unnecessary features, compatibility layers, and bloated resource requirements. At the same time, mobile platforms, with their own set of limitations, have emerged as the dominant force in personal computing. But in both the browser and mobile spaces, a fundamental problem persists: these platforms cannot adequately meet the interface requirements of the future. To solve this, the industry must look beyond the browser and mobile OSes to Linux-based native interfaces, which hold the potential to solve many of these long-standing technical challenges.

The Browser: Once the Future, Now the Bottleneck

Browsers began as humble, lightweight tools designed to access static web pages. They were revolutionary in their simplicity and efficiency. Over time, however, they have become bloated as they absorbed features intended to support the dynamic, interactive nature of modern web applications. JavaScript engines, HTML5 standards, CSS3, WebAssembly, and increasingly complex web frameworks like React and Angular have all contributed to the browser’s expanding feature set. Add to this mix the integration of privacy tools like ad blockers, content filters, and trackers, and the browser’s performance becomes a shadow of its former self.

The rise of progressive web apps (PWAs) and single-page applications (SPAs) only exacerbated this trend. While these technologies provide a more app-like experience, they do so by stacking more layers of abstraction on top of the browser, further diminishing its efficiency. With every new layer, the browser grows heavier, consuming more CPU and memory resources, and demanding ever more from users' hardware.

Mobile Platforms: The Same Story, But on a Different Screen

Mobile platforms, like iOS and Android, have followed a similar path. Initially lauded for their simplicity and seamless integration between hardware and software, they too have become bloated as they strive to accommodate the growing complexity of mobile apps. The latest iPhones and Android devices come equipped with powerful processors and gigabytes of RAM, yet the operating systems themselves have grown heavier, incorporating features like constant background processes, overcomplicated notifications, and a growing number of system services. These platforms are no longer simply about accessing apps; they are now about managing layers upon layers of systems, frameworks, and security features.

Even the app ecosystem itself has suffered from bloat. Apps are increasingly large, with multiple dependencies and high resource consumption, yet still fail to deliver truly optimal performance across devices. Whether it’s a social media app or a weather app, the experience is often laden with unnecessary features, ads, and trackers. As mobile devices get more powerful, these operating systems and apps continue to consume ever more resources, yet they remain unable to deliver the lean, efficient user experience that the future requires.

The Key Technical Challenges of the Future: Speed, Efficiency, and Adaptability

The future of computing is not about bigger and more powerful devices, but about smarter, leaner systems that can adapt to the rapidly changing demands of users. Whether in web browsers, mobile platforms, or even desktop environments, the current trajectory is unsustainable for several reasons:

1. Inefficiency in Resource Utilization: Both browsers and mobile platforms are designed with a broad, catch-all approach, which means they are rarely optimized for specific use cases. Every new feature or application adds another layer of abstraction, making the entire system less efficient. What we need is a computing environment that can adapt to specific needs without overloading the system.

2. Fragmentation: In both the browser and mobile ecosystems, developers are forced to account for a wide range of devices, screen sizes, and hardware configurations. The need for backward compatibility often means that resources are wasted on features that will never be used by the majority of users. The result is fragmentation that hampers performance and prevents seamless user experiences.

3. Security and Privacy: As browsers and mobile platforms have evolved, so too have the threats they face. Unfortunately, the solutions to these problems often result in more bloated, inefficient systems. Privacy tools, security features, and frequent updates all contribute to the overhead, making the system sluggish and resource-hungry.

4. Customization and Control: Users today demand more control over their computing environment. Yet both browsers and mobile platforms impose rigid structures that limit customization and fine-tuning. The future demands an interface that can be tailored to individual needs, allowing users to remove unnecessary features and optimize the system for their specific requirements.

Linux-Based Native Interfaces: The Solution We’ve Been Waiting For

Linux, in its many flavors, offers a level of efficiency, flexibility, and control that is unmatched by any browser or mobile OS. Unlike closed-source platforms like iOS or Android, or even the ubiquitous but bloated web browsers, Linux offers a lightweight, modular environment that can be tailored to meet the specific needs of both developers and end-users.

1. Resource Efficiency: Linux’s design philosophy emphasizes minimalism and efficiency. The system can be stripped down to its core components, running only the processes that are necessary for a given task. Unlike browsers, which are burdened by extraneous features, Linux can be optimized to deliver the best possible performance.

2. Customization and Modularity: Linux is inherently customizable. Whether it’s through different desktop environments (like GNOME, KDE, or i3), or through the use of lightweight window managers, users can build an environment that fits their needs exactly. This is in stark contrast to the rigid, monolithic structures imposed by browsers and mobile platforms.

3. Security and Privacy: Linux offers superior control over privacy and security. With tools like AppArmor, SELinux, and the ability to run minimal system environments, Linux can offer an inherently more secure computing environment, without the bloat associated with mainstream operating systems.

4. Openness and Transparency: As an open-source platform, Linux provides transparency in how the system operates. This allows developers to better understand and optimize their environments, a luxury that is often absent in proprietary operating systems.

The Emergent Role of ERM and the Future of Computing

As we look towards the future, Linux-based systems, particularly those that are optimized for specific use cases, will become more important. A promising new technology on the horizon is erm (Erlang Mobile), which seeks to take advantage of Erlang’s strengths—concurrency, fault tolerance, and scalability—while providing a native mobile platform for applications. With its low resource requirements and high reliability, erm could be the key to overcoming the bloated nature of current mobile platforms, offering a highly efficient, customizable mobile experience that doesn’t compromise on performance or security.

But as much as erm represents the potential for a better future, the landscape remains precarious. The dominant players in the tech industry, with their entrenched ecosystems and bloated platforms, are not likely to relinquish their hold easily. The shift to a Linux-based native interface will require a concerted effort from developers, communities, and users to embrace new paradigms of computing.

Conclusion: A Precarious Future, But One Worth Fighting For

The future of computing will not be found in bloated browsers or mobile platforms that serve every use case and are slow to adapt. It lies in lean, efficient systems like Linux, where performance, security, and customization are paramount. With emerging technologies like erm, we can begin to imagine a future where interfaces are designed with purpose, not excess. It’s time to challenge the status quo and embrace the future of computing—not just for the sake of efficiency, but for the long-term survival of innovation in a world where performance, adaptability, and security are non-negotiable.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Boardthreads

This was a very badly done service for turning a Trello list into a helpdesk UI.

Surprisingly, it had more paying users than Websites For Trello, which I was working on simultaneously and dedicating much more time to it.

The Neo4j database I used for this was a very poor choice, it was probably the cause of all the bugs.

-https://github.com/fiatjaf/boardthreads

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

bolt12 problems

• clients can't programatically build new offers by changing a path or query params (services like zbd.gg or lnurl-pay.me won't work)
• impossible to use in a load-balanced custodian way -- since offers would have to be pregenerated and tied to a specific lightning node.
• the existence of fiat currency fields makes it so wallets have to fetch exchange rates from somewhere on the internet (or offer a bad user experience), using HTTP which hurts user privacy.
• the vendor field is misleading, can be phished very easily, not as safe as a domain name.
• onion messages are an improvement over fake HTLC-based payments as a way of transmitting data, for sure. but we must decide if they are (i) suitable for transmitting all kinds of data over the internet, a replacement for tor; or (ii) not something that will scale well or on which we can count on for the future. if there was proper incentivization for data transmission it could end up being (i), the holy grail of p2p communication over the internet, but that is a very hard problem to solve and not guaranteed to yield the desired scalability results. since not even hints of attempting to solve that are being made, it's safer to conclude it is (ii).

bolt12 limitations

• not flexible enough. there are some interesting fields defined in the spec, but who gets to add more fields later if necessary? very unclear.
• services can't return any actionable data to the users who paid for something. it's unclear how business can be conducted without an extra communication channel.

bolt12 illusions

• recurring payments is not really solved, it is just a spec that defines intervals. the actual implementation must still be done by each wallet and service. the recurring payment cannot be enforced, the wallet must still initiate the payment. even if the wallet is evil and is willing to initiate a payment without the user knowing it still needs to have funds, channels, be online, connected etc., so it's not as if the services could rely on the payments being delivered in time.
• people seem to think it will enable pushing payments to mobile wallets, which it does not and cannot.
• there is a confusion of contexts: it looks like offers are superior to lnurl-pay, for example, because they don't require domain names. domain names, though, are common and well-established among internet services and stores, because these services have websites, so this is not really an issue. it is an issue, though, for people that want to receive payments in their homes. for these, indeed, bolt12 offers a superior solution -- but at the same time bolt12 seems to be selling itself as a tool for merchants and service providers when it includes and highlights features as recurring payments and refunds.
• the privacy gains for the receiver that are promoted as being part of bolt12 in fact come from a separate proposal, blinded paths, which should work for all normal lightning payments and indeed are a very nice solution. they are (or at least were, and should be) independent from the bolt12 proposal. a separate proposal, which can be (and already is being) used right now, also improves privacy for the receiver very much anway, it's called trampoline routing.

@ 3d5b0dd4:1bb42b58

Niche Languages

Overview

Tejas recently came to me with a business idea related to helping people learn to speak uncommonly-spoken languages. It seemed intriguing so I am doing this deep dive into niche languages to get some clarity around the topic.

Tejas and his fiances’ families speak Gujarati. Tejas wants to learn this language so that he can speak with family members in their native tongue. Gujarati is a widely-spoken language in India, so he figured there would be plenty of learning-resources online.

Not so. There’s some buggy apps, some independent online courses. None of it looks trustworthy enough so that I would feel comfortable committing a significant amount of my time towards it.

Duolingo

Duolingo is the king. The owl is popular-culture canon. They’ve cracked gamification — people I have talked with have year-long streaks and use it even if they don’t have a strong desire to learn a language. Learning a language is really really hard, but Duolingo has figured out how to reliably get people to beginner level at any language while keeping it fun and engaging.

Still, Duolingo supports 40 languages. That seems like a lot. But let’s dive into some data to find out if that’s true.

Let’s Gather Some Data

Enthnologue currently estimates that there are 7,164 languages currently spoken in the world. Here is a basic breakdown of these by their current status:

Institutional — The language has been developed to the point that it is used and sustained by institutions beyond the home and community. These “institutional” languages are what we want to focus on.

It is surprisingly hard to find a list of more than 30 languages sorted by the total number of speakers. Ethnologue charges $250 (!) for their list and that seems to be the consensus best source. The best I have found is this list but this does not seem trustworthy at all. Quickly checking a few of the # of speakers on the table versus the # of speakers on the associated Wikipedia link shows lots of inconsistencies. So I’m gonna scrape Wikipedia and make this list myself, brb…

OK done. I made a repository with the script and the resulting sqlite database and pasted a smaller (top 100 out of 810 total) table at the bottom of this article. It is sorted by the number of people who speak the language natively. I chose this because it would have been much more complicated to get the total speakers, and because native speakers is more important for our goals here.

Why Learn a Language?

So, Duolingo supports 40 languages. Two of these are fictional languages (High Valyrian and Klingon) and one, Esperanto, is “an artificial language designed to be an international second language”. Here are the top 11 languages in our top 100 list that Duolingo does not support:

1. Bengali (237 Million)
2. Punjabi (150 Million)
3. Nigerian (116 Million)
4. Marathi (83 Million)
5. Telugu (83 Million)
6. Wu (83 Million)
7. Malay (82 Million)
8. Tamil (79 Million)
9. Persian (72 Million)
10. Javanese (68 Million)
11. Gujarati (57 Million)

Why are these languages not supported by Duolingo? Each of these languages have more native speakers than Polish, which IS supported. What process is Duolingo using to decide which languages are worth investing in to add to their app? Why do these languages not match that criteria? Or, more precisely:

1. What are the motivations of people who use Duolingo?
2. Why would anyone want to learn the languages on our top-11 list?

Here are the reasons people use Duolingo shown pretty plainly in Duolingo’s onboarding flow:

Only one of the languages on our top-11 list (Nigerian) is the primary language spoken throughout any one country. Wu is a minority languages in China, Javanese is a minority language in Indonesia, and the remaining 7 are minority languages in India.

Minority Languages

Even though these are minority languages in their respective countries, those who natively speak it use it as their primary language among their family, friends, and broader community. If my family or friends natively speak Gujarati, I will be able to communicate with them in a way that allows them to fully express themselves with all of the nuances and complexity of the language they are most familiar with. The same applies if I am traveling to a region in India that speaks Gujarati.

It makes sense to me that Duolingo would not offer minority languages on its platform. Its users want to gain beginner-proficiency to aid themselves in international business, recreational travel, or a school course. Learning a country’s majority language is almost always the better use of time for these goals.

It does not make sense to me why there is not a huge offering of language-learning tools to learn Gujarati. 57 million people natively speak this. While this is one-tenth of those who natively speak Hindi (500 million), it is still a huge number. A sizeable amount of people travel to regions that speak Gujarati or have family that speaks Gujarati. Would those people not benefit from gaining even a beginner-level understanding of the language? I think they would.

---

Top 100 Languages by Number of Native Speakers

| Rank | Name | Native Speakers | | ---- | ------------------------- | --------------- | | 1 | Chinese | 1,350,000,000 | | 2 | Mandarin | 940,000,000 | | 3 | Spanish | 600,000,000 | | 4 | Hindustani | 500,000,000 | | 5 | Arabic | 380,000,000 | | 6 | English | 380,000,000 | | 7 | Russian | 255,000,000 | | 8 | Bengali | 237,000,000 | | 9 | Portuguese | 236,000,000 | | 10 | Punjabi | 150,000,000 | | 11 | Japanese | 123,000,000 | | 12 | Mexican Spanish | 120,000,000 | | 13 | Nigerian PidginBroken | 116,000,000 | | 14 | German | 95,000,000 | | 15 | Vietnamese | 85,000,000 | | 16 | Turkish | 84,000,000 | | 17 | Marathi | 83,000,000 | | 18 | Telugu | 83,000,000 | | 19 | Wu | 83,000,000 | | 20 | Malay | 82,000,000 | | 21 | Korean | 81,000,000 | | 22 | Tamil | 79,000,000 | | 23 | Egyptian Arabic | 78,000,000 | | 24 | French | 74,000,000 | | 25 | Indonesian | 72,000,000 | | 26 | Persian | 72,000,000 | | 27 | Italian | 68,000,000 | | 28 | Javanese | 68,000,000 | | 29 | Gujarati | 57,000,000 | | 30 | Hausa | 54,000,000 | | 31 | Bhojpuri | 52,200,000 | | 32 | Levantine Arabic | 51,000,000 | | 33 | Uzbek | 51,000,000 | | 34 | Oromo | 45,500,000 | | 35 | Yoruba | 45,000,000 | | 36 | Hakka | 44,000,000 | | 37 | Kannada | 44,000,000 | | 38 | Pashto | 44,000,000 | | 39 | Polish | 40,000,000 | | 40 | Odia | 38,000,000 | | 41 | Xiang | 38,000,000 | | 42 | Malayalam | 37,000,000 | | 43 | Sudanese Arabic | 37,000,000 | | 44 | Algerian Arabic | 36,000,000 | | 45 | Amharic | 35,000,000 | | 46 | Burmese | 33,000,000 | | 47 | Ukrainian | 33,000,000 | | 48 | Sindhi | 32,000,000 | | 49 | Sundanese | 32,000,000 | | 50 | Igbo | 31,000,000 | | 51 | Moroccan Arabic | 29,000,000 | | 52 | Tagalog | 29,000,000 | | 53 | Kurdish | 26,000,000 | | 54 | Dutch | 25,000,000 | | 55 | Malagasy | 25,000,000 | | 56 | Romanian | 25,000,000 | | 57 | Saʽīdi Arabic | 25,000,000 | | 58 | Azerbaijani | 24,000,000 | | 59 | Somali | 24,000,000 | | 60 | Gan | 23,000,000 | | 61 | Isan | 22,000,000 | | 62 | Lingala | 21,000,000 | | 63 | Thai | 21,000,000 | | 64 | Cebuano | 20,000,000 | | 65 | Najdi Arabic | 19,000,000 | | 66 | Nepali | 19,000,000 | | 67 | Serbo-Croatian | 18,000,000 | | 68 | Gilit Mesopotamian Arabic | 17,000,000 | | 69 | Khmer | 17,000,000 | | 70 | Maithili | 16,800,000 | | 71 | Kazakh | 16,700,000 | | 72 | Chhattisgarhi | 16,200,000 | | 73 | Chittagonian | 16,000,000 | | 74 | Sinhala | 16,000,000 | | 75 | Zhuang | 16,000,000 | | 76 | Zulu | 16,000,000 | | 77 | Assamese | 15,000,000 | | 78 | Bavarian | 15,000,000 | | 79 | Hungarian | 14,000,000 | | 80 | Madurese | 13,600,000 | | 81 | Greek | 13,500,000 | | 82 | Haitian Creole | 13,000,000 | | 83 | Sanʽani Arabic | 13,000,000 | | 84 | Uyghur | 13,000,000 | | 85 | Kikuyu | 12,000,000 | | 86 | Serbian | 12,000,000 | | 87 | Taʽizzi-Adeni Arabic | 12,000,000 | | 88 | Tunisian Arabic | 12,000,000 | | 89 | Gulf ArabicKhaleeji | 11,000,000 | | 90 | Hejazi Arabic | 11,000,000 | | 91 | Tausūg | 11,000,000 | | 92 | Xhosa | 11,000,000 | | 93 | Czech | 10,600,000 | | 94 | Rangpuri | 10,000,000 | | 95 | North Mesopotamian Arabic | 10,000,000 | | 96 | Swedish | 10,000,000 | | 97 | Tajik | 10,000,000 | | 98 | Tigrinya | 9,700,000 | | 99 | Kanuri | 9,600,000 | | 100 | Hiligaynon | 9,100,000 |

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Yeah, so... nah.

People keep trying to explain to me, that women will be better-off, if they become more dangerous. While I can see the inevitableness of women living in remote rural areas learning to shoot with a rifle, and similar, I'm generally against arming women with killing machines.

This is not because I'm averse to the idea of using violence to solve problems (albeit after exhausting better options), or because I don't like guns, or am unfamiliar with them. It's also not because I don't know I would look totally, mind-numbingly hot holding something long and spearlike, while dressed in camo and wearing a T-Shirt that appears to have shrunk in the wash.

It's a more fundamental set of problems, that irks me.

Bazooka Barbie

American gun manufacturers saturated the public and private male market so thoroughly, that they eventually turned to marketing firearms to women.

Men are scary and bad. There is Stranger Danger. We can't just make the neighborhood less dangerous because erm... reasons. Stay safe with a cute gun.

It has gone along with the predictable hypersexualization of the conservative feminine ideal. Since guns are considered aggressive, women with guns are perceived as more sexually available. Guns (and tanks, bombs, bows, etc.) make women "equal", "independent", "feisty", "hot", "freaky", "calculating", "empowered", etc.

Sorta slutty, basically.

This Gun Girl is not like the helpless, hapless, harmless homemaker ideal, of yesteryear. A woman who was dependent, chaste, gentle, wise... and in need of protection. A woman who saw the men around her as people she could rely on for providing her with a safe environment. That woman is au revoir. Now, sistas are doing it for themselves. 💪🏻

The New Martial Missy needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle... but make it country.

Yeah, it's marketing, but it sure has set the tone, and millions of men have been trained to prefer women who market themselves in this manner. Hard, mean, lean women. That will not remain without wider societal consequences.

You know, I liked that homemaker. I miss her. She's literally me.

Those arms are for cuddling babies, not holding rocket launchers.

Now, that we've all become accustomed to imagery of women holding firearms, it wasn't much of a leap to condition us all to the sight of women in frontline police, guard, or military positions.

Instead of war being a terrible, highly-lethal, territorial fight amongst men, it's now cute, hip, trendy and fun. It's a big party, and women are finally allowed to join in.

Now, women have finally jettisoned the terrible burden of being society's life-bearers and caretakers, and we're just more potential enemy combatants. We know it's okay to punch women, shoot women, etc. since we've been watching it happen on screens, for decades. Women are now often assumed to be fighters, not lovers. Cavalry, not mothers.

Girls on top

Not only does this undermine any female role -- and put female civilians under a cloud of suspicion -- it also reduces mens' claim to be paramount in governance. Why should a man be the Commander in Chief, if women are on the battlefield?

In fact, why should men be in charge of anything, anywhere? Look at them. There they are. Hiding at home. Cowering in their kitchens, wringing their hands and fretting, while courageous, dangerous women protect them from dangers foreign and domestic. Women are the better men, really.

Is this really where we want to go?

The final bitterness

But one thing I find most disturbing is something more personal. The ubiquitous nature of firearms in American homes has made domestic violence increasingly deadly. Adding more guns, for the female residents, often serves to make such violence even more deadly for women.

It turns out, that women are usually reluctant to shoot people they know; even more than men. Women without this inhibition are prone to sharing their home with men missing the same trait. And, now, they have more guns.

@ a383f86d:cdb417d4

VND168 là một trong những nền tảng trực tuyến nổi bật, được thiết kế để mang đến trải nghiệm mượt mà, an toàn và tiện lợi cho người dùng. Với giao diện thân thiện, dễ sử dụng và bố cục rõ ràng, nền tảng này giúp người dùng dễ dàng truy cập và tìm kiếm các tính năng yêu thích. Dù là người mới bắt đầu hay đã có kinh nghiệm, VND168 luôn tạo ra không gian thoải mái và dễ dàng sử dụng cho mọi đối tượng người dùng.

Một trong những điểm mạnh của VND168 chính là hệ thống bảo mật tối tân, giúp bảo vệ thông tin cá nhân và dữ liệu giao dịch của người dùng một cách tuyệt đối. Nền tảng này sử dụng công nghệ mã hóa hiện đại, đảm bảo rằng mọi thông tin quan trọng đều được bảo mật ở mức cao nhất. Các giao dịch trên VND168 đều được xử lý nhanh chóng và an toàn, giúp người dùng hoàn toàn yên tâm trong mọi hoạt động. Đội ngũ kỹ thuật luôn giám sát hệ thống 24/7 để kịp thời phát hiện và xử lý mọi nguy cơ tiềm ẩn. https://vnd168.site

Không chỉ nổi bật về tính bảo mật, VND168 còn được đánh giá cao nhờ dịch vụ hỗ trợ khách hàng chuyên nghiệp. Đội ngũ nhân viên chăm sóc khách hàng luôn sẵn sàng hỗ trợ qua nhiều kênh liên lạc như hotline, email và chat trực tuyến. Bất kỳ câu hỏi hay vấn đề nào phát sinh đều được đội ngũ hỗ trợ giải quyết nhanh chóng và hiệu quả, đảm bảo mang đến sự hài lòng tối đa cho người dùng. Điều này tạo ra sự tin tưởng và an tâm trong suốt quá trình trải nghiệm nền tảng.

Ngoài ra, VND168 thường xuyên triển khai các chương trình khuyến mãi hấp dẫn và các sự kiện đặc biệt dành riêng cho người dùng. Những chương trình này không chỉ mang lại giá trị thực tế mà còn tạo ra những trải nghiệm thú vị và đáng nhớ. Nền tảng cũng liên tục cập nhật và cải tiến các tính năng mới, đảm bảo người dùng luôn được tiếp cận với công nghệ hiện đại nhất. Điều này giúp VND168 luôn giữ được sức hút và tạo ra sự khác biệt so với các nền tảng khác trên thị trường.

Tóm lại, VND168 là một nền tảng trực tuyến an toàn, tiện lợi và đáng tin cậy, đáp ứng mọi nhu cầu của người dùng. Từ giao diện thân thiện, bảo mật tối ưu, dịch vụ chăm sóc khách hàng tận tình cho đến các chương trình ưu đãi hấp dẫn, tất cả đều góp phần tạo nên một trải nghiệm tuyệt vời. VND168 không chỉ là lựa chọn hàng đầu mà còn là điểm đến lý tưởng cho những ai đang tìm kiếm một nền tảng giải trí chất lượng cao.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

I started a long series of articles about how to model different types of knowledge graphs in the relational model, which makes on-device memory models for AI agents possible.

We model-directed graphs

Also, graphs of entities

We even model hypergraphs

Last time, we discussed why classical triple and simple knowledge graphs are insufficient for AI agents and complex memory, especially in the domain of time-aware or multi-model knowledge.

So why do we need metagraphs, and what kind of challenge could they help us to solve?

• complex and nested event and temporal context and temporal relations as edges
• multi-mode and multilingual knowledge
• human-like memory for AI agents that has multiple contexts and relations between knowledge in neuron-like networks

MetaGraphs

A meta graph is a concept that extends the idea of a graph by allowing edges to become graphs. Meta Edges connect a set of nodes, which could also be subgraphs. So, at some level, node and edge are pretty similar in properties but act in different roles in a different context.
Also, in some cases, edges could be referenced as nodes.
This approach enables the representation of more complex relationships and hierarchies than a traditional graph structure allows. Let’s break down each term to understand better metagraphs and how they differ from hypergraphs and graphs.

Graph Basics

• A standard graph has a set of nodes (or vertices) and edges (connections between nodes).
• Edges are generally simple and typically represent a binary relationship between two nodes.
• For instance, an edge in a social network graph might indicate a “friend” relationship between two people (nodes).

Hypergraph

• A hypergraph extends the concept of an edge by allowing it to connect any number of nodes, not just two.
• Each connection, called a hyperedge, can link multiple nodes.
• This feature allows hypergraphs to model more complex relationships involving multiple entities simultaneously. For example, a hyperedge in a hypergraph could represent a project team, connecting all team members in a single relation.
• Despite its flexibility, a hypergraph doesn’t capture hierarchical or nested structures; it only generalizes the number of connections in an edge.

Metagraph

• A metagraph allows the edges to be graphs themselves. This means each edge can contain its own nodes and edges, creating nested, hierarchical structures.
• In a meta graph, an edge could represent a relationship defined by a graph. For instance, a meta graph could represent a network of organizations where each organization’s structure (departments and connections) is represented by its own internal graph and treated as an edge in the larger meta graph.
• This recursive structure allows metagraphs to model complex data with multiple layers of abstraction. They can capture multi-node relationships (as in hypergraphs) and detailed, structured information about each relationship.

Named Graphs and Graph of Graphs

As you can notice, the structure of a metagraph is quite complex and could be complex to model in relational and classical RDF setups. It could create a challenge of luck of tools and software solutions for your problem.
If you need to model nested graphs, you could use a much simpler model of Named graphs, which could take you quite far.

The concept of the named graph came from the RDF community, which needed to group some sets of triples. In this way, you form subgraphs inside an existing graph. You could refer to the subgraph as a regular node. This setup simplifies complex graphs, introduces hierarchies, and even adds features and properties of hypergraphs while keeping a directed nature.

It looks complex, but it is not so hard to model it with a slight modification of a directed graph.
So, the node could host graphs inside. Let's reflect this fact with a location for a node. If a node belongs to a main graph, we could set the location to null or introduce a main node . it is up to you

Nodes could have edges to nodes in different subgraphs. This structure allows any kind of nesting graphs. Edges stay location-free

Meta Graphs in Relational Model

Let’s try to make several attempts to model different meta-graphs with some constraints.

Directed Metagraph where edges are not used as nodes and could not contain subgraphs

In this case, the edge always points to two sets of nodes. This introduces an overhead of creating a node set for a single node. In this model, we can model empty node sets that could require application-level constraints to prevent such cases.

Directed Metagraph where edges are not used as nodes and could contain subgraphs

Adding a node set that could model a subgraph located in an edge is easy but could be separate from in-vertex or out-vert.
I also do not see a direct need to include subgraphs to a node, as we could just use a node set interchangeably, but it still could be a case.

Directed Metagraph where edges are used as nodes and could contain subgraphs

As you can notice, we operate all the time with node sets. We could simply allow the extension node set to elements set that include node and edge IDs, but in this case, we need to use uuid or any other strategy to differentiate node IDs from edge IDs. In this case, we have a collision of ephemeral edges or ephemeral nodes when we want to change the role and purpose of the node as an edge or vice versa.

A full-scale metagraph model is way too complex for a relational database.
So we need a better model.

Now, we have more flexibility but loose structural constraints. We cannot show that the element should have one vertex, one vertex, or both. This type of constraint has been moved to the application level. Also, the crucial question is about query and retrieval needs.
Any meta-graph model should be more focused on domain and needs and should be used in raw form. We did it for a pure theoretical purpose.

@ 74e4eb50:d6662b8b

Impfstoff für Menschen wird 3 Tage getestet – für Hühner aber 21 Tage

Die Pharmakonzerne sind hektisch daran neue Impf-Präparate auf den Markt zu bringen. Nach Corona hofft man auf enorme Profite. Die Zulassungsbehörden und die Impf-Empfehlungs-Gremien helfen massiv dabei. Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit werden immer weniger getestet. In den USA hat Donald Trump mit Robert F. Kennedy sowie einer Reihe weiterer Nominierungen von Spitzenleuten für das Gesundheitswesen inklusive [...]

Der Beitrag Impfstoff für Menschen wird 3 Tage getestet – für Hühner aber 21 Tage (https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/impfstoff-fuer-menschen-wird-3-tage-getestet-fuer-huehner-aber-21-tage/) erschien zuerst unter tkp.at (https://tkp.at).

Comments: https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/impfstoff-fuer-menschen-wird-3-tage-getestet-fuer-huehner-aber-21-tage/#comments

https://tkp.at/2024/12/24/impfstoff-fuer-menschen-wird-3-tage-getestet-fuer-huehner-aber-21-tage/

@ 16d11430:61640947

In the 21st century, the fusion of socialist wealth redistribution with capitalist façades has created a unique societal experiment. While appearing to balance equality and innovation, quasi-capitalist socialism breeds inherent weaknesses within populations, both culturally and genetically. This article delves into how such systems inadvertently undermine the evolutionary potential of humanity and enable cycles of moral and biological decay.

1. The Illusion of Progress and Survival of the Weakest

At its core, evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest—those most adapted to their environment thrive and pass on their traits. Quasi-capitalist socialist societies disrupt this natural process by shielding individuals from the consequences of their choices.

Redistribution systems, fueled by the labor of the capable, reward mediocrity and often subsidize irresponsibility. When individuals who contribute little to societal advancement are supported and encouraged to multiply, while productive members face disincentives to procreate due to financial and societal burdens, the genetic future of a population is weakened. Over generations, this leads to a dilution of traits associated with resilience, intelligence, and innovation.

1. Cultural Stagnation and the Death of Merit

Socialism often fosters a culture where equality of outcome trumps equality of opportunity. When wealth is distributed based on need rather than contribution, meritocracy dies. In such systems, cultural stagnation sets in, as ambition and innovation give way to complacency.

This culture of dependency, passed down through generations, creates populations that value entitlement over effort. The genetic underpinnings of creativity and drive—traits that have historically propelled humanity forward—are deprioritized, further embedding mediocrity as the norm.

1. State-Engineered Social Weakness

In quasi-capitalist socialist systems, the state becomes the ultimate provider, eroding traditional family and community structures. With dependence on government support replacing reliance on kinship and mutual effort, strong family units—historically a cornerstone of resilience—begin to fracture.

This creates populations that are increasingly atomized, emotionally fragile, and unable to navigate adversity without external support. Over time, traits associated with independence and adaptability fade, as survival no longer hinges on these qualities.

1. The Genetic Feedback Loop of Entitlement

The ideology underpinning quasi-capitalist socialism perpetuates its own genetic and societal weaknesses. By normalizing entitlement and demonizing self-reliance, it creates an intergenerational feedback loop where those most dependent on state support become the majority.

Genetic traits associated with industriousness, risk-taking, and critical thinking diminish, replaced by passivity and complacency. Such populations, while appearing stable in the short term, are vulnerable to external shocks, unable to adapt to environmental or economic crises.

1. Moral Decay and the Rise of Opportunistic Evil

When mediocrity is celebrated, and the strong are vilified, a void emerges in moral and cultural leadership. Into this void steps opportunistic evil—individuals and ideologies that exploit weakness for power. These entities manipulate populations weakened by dependence and fractured by internal contradictions, consolidating control under the guise of benevolence.

This "benevolent tyranny" undermines the moral fabric of society, fostering environments where corruption thrives. Populations conditioned to accept handouts and avoid responsibility are less likely to resist encroachments on their freedom, accelerating their descent into servitude.

1. The Future: A Warning of Genetic Decline

If unchecked, the long-term genetic and cultural consequences of quasi-capitalist socialism are dire. Humanity risks becoming a species that prioritizes comfort over challenge, safety over growth, and dependency over self-determination.

Such societies may initially seem prosperous but are built on a fragile foundation. When faced with crises—whether environmental, technological, or existential—they may lack the genetic and cultural tools to respond effectively, leading to collapse.

1. Counteracting the Cycle

To avoid this dystopian future, societies must:

Reinstate meritocracy: Reward effort, innovation, and contribution rather than need or compliance.

Promote individual responsibility: Shift the focus from state dependence to self-reliance and community building.

Foster a culture of excellence: Celebrate achievement and challenge rather than mediocrity and entitlement.

Encourage generational investment: Provide incentives for highly skilled individuals to have children and nurture future leaders.

Conclusion: A Battle for Humanity’s Future

Quasi-capitalist socialism is not inherently evil, but its unchecked application breeds systemic weakness. By disrupting the natural processes that reward strength, resilience, and ingenuity, it risks creating populations ill-equipped for the challenges of the future. If humanity is to thrive, it must confront this silent erosion of its potential and reclaim the values that have driven progress for millennia. The battle for the genetic and cultural integrity of future generations begins today.

@ b60c3e76:c9d0f46e

KRIS menjamin semua golongan masyarakat mendapatkan perlakuan sama dari rumah sakit, baik pelayanan medis maupun nonmedis.

Demi memberikan peningkatan kualitas layanan kesehatan kepada masyarakat, pemerintah baru saja mengeluarkan Peraturan Presiden (Perpres) nomor 59 tahun 2024 tentang Jaminan Kesehatan. Melalui perpres itu, Presiden Joko Widodo (Jokowi) telah menghapus perbedaan kelas layanan 1, 2, dan 3 dalam Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial atau BPJS Kesehatan.

Layanan berbasis kelas itu diganti dengan KRIS (Kelas Rawat Inap Standar). Berkaitan dengan lahirnya Perpres 59/2024 tentang Perubahan Ketiga atas Perpres 82/2018 tentang Jaminan Kesehatan, Presiden Joko Widodo telah memerintahkan seluruh rumah sakit yang bekerja sama dengan BPJS Kesehatan melaksanakannya.

Kebijakan baru itu mulai berlaku per 8 Mei 2024 dan paling lambat 30 Juni 2025. Dalam jangka waktu tersebut, rumah sakit dapat menyelenggarakan sebagian atau seluruh pelayanan rawat inap berdasarkan KRIS sesuai dengan kemampuan rumah sakit.

Lantas apa yang menjadi pembeda dari sisi layanan dengan layanan rawat inap sesuai Perpres 59/2024? Dahulu sistem layanan rawat BPJS Kesehatan dibagi berdasarkan kelas yang dibagi masing-masing kelas 1, 2, dan 3. Namun, melalui perpres, layanan kepada masyarakat tidak dibedakan lagi.

Pelayanan rawat inap yang diatur dalam perpres itu--dikenal dengan nama KRIS—menjadi sistem baru yang digunakan dalam pelayanan rawat inap BPJS Kesehatan di rumah sakit-rumah sakit. Dengan KRIS, semua golongan masyarakat akan mendapatkan perlakuan yang sama dari rumah sakit, baik dalam hal pelayanan medis maupun nonmedis.

Dengan lahirnya Perpres 59/2024, tarif iuran BPJS Kesehatan pun juga akan berubah. Hanya saja, dalam Perpres itu belum dicantumkan secara rinci ihwal besar iuran yang baru. Besaran iuran baru BPJS Kesehatan itu sesuai rencana baru ditetapkan pada 1 Juli 2025.

“Penetapan manfaat, tarif, dan iuran sebagaimana dimaksud ditetapkan paling lambat tanggal 1 Juli 2025,” tulis aturan tersebut, dikutip Senin (13/5/2024).

Itu artinya, iuran BPJS Kesehatan saat ini masih sama seperti sebelumnya, yakni sesuai dengan kelas yang dipilih. Namun perpres itu tetap berlaku sembari menanti lahirnya peraturan lanjutan dari perpres tersebut.

Kesiapan Rumah Sakit

Berkaitan dengan lahirnya kebijakan layanan kesehatan tanpa dibedakan kelas lagi, Kementerian Kesehatan (Kemenkes) menegaskan mayoritas rumah sakit di Indonesia siap untuk menjalankan layanan KRIS untuk pasien BPJS Kesehatan.

Kesiapan itu diungkapkan oleh Dirjen Pelayanan Kesehatan Kemenkes Azhar Jaya. “Survei kesiapan RS terkait KRIS sudah dilakukan pada 2.988 rumah sakit dan yang sudah siap menjawab isian 12 kriteria ada sebanyak 2.233 rumah sakit,” ujar Azhar.

Sebagai informasi, KRIS adalah pengganti layanan Kelas 1, 2, dan 3 BPJS Kesehatan yang bertujuan untuk memberikan layanan kesehatan secara merata tanpa melihat besaran iurannya.

Melalui KRIS, rumah sakit perlu menyiapkan sarana dan prasarana sesuai dengan 12 kriteria kelas rawat inap standar secara bertahap. Apa saja ke-12 kriteria KRIS itu?

Sesuai bunyi Pasal 46A Perpres 59/2024, disyaratkan kriteria fasilitas perawatan dan pelayanan rawat inap KRIS meliputi komponen bangunan yang digunakan tidak boleh memiliki tingkat porositas yang tinggi serta terdapat ventilasi udara dan kelengkapan tidur.

Demikian pula soal pencahayaan ruangan. Perpres itu juga mengatur pencahayaan ruangan buatan mengikuti kriteria standar 250 lux untuk penerangan dan 50 lux untuk pencahayaan tidur, temperature ruangan 20--26 derajat celcius.

Tidak hanya itu, layanan rawat inap berdasarkan perpres itu mensyaratkan fasilitas layanan yang membagi ruang rawat berdasarkan jenis kelamin pasien, anak atau dewasa, serta penyakit infeksi atau noninfeksi.

Selain itu, kriteria lainnya adalah keharusan bagi penyedia layanan untuk mempertimbangkan kepadatan ruang rawat dan kualitas tempat tidur, penyediaan tirai atau partisi antartempat tidur, kamar mandi dalam ruangan rawat inap yang memenuhi standar aksesibilitas, dan menyediakan outlet oksigen.

Selain itu, kelengkapan tempat tidur berupa adanya dua kotak kontak dan nurse call pada setiap tempat tidur dan adanya nakas per tempat tidur. Kepadatan ruang rawat inap maksimal empat tempat tidur dengan jarak antara tepi tempat tidur minimal 1,5 meter.

Tirai/partisi dengan rel dibenamkan menempel di plafon atau menggantung. Kamar mandi dalam ruang rawat inap serta kamar mandi sesuai dengan standar aksesibilitas dan outlet oksigen.

Azhar menjamin, Kemenkes akan menjalankan hal tersebut sesuai dengan tupoksi yang ada. “Tentu saja kami akan bekerja sama dengan BPJS Kesehatan dalam implementasi dan pengawasannya di lapangan,” ujar Azhar.

Berkaitan dengan perpres jaminan kesehatan itu, Direktur Utama BPJS Kesehatan Ghufron Mukti menilai, perpres tersebut berorientasi pada penyeragaman kelas rawat inap yang mengacu pada 12 kriteria. "Bahwa perawatan ada kelas rawat inap standar dengan 12 kriteria, untuk peserta BPJS, maka sebagaimana sumpah dokter tidak boleh dibedakan pemberian pelayan medis atas dasar suku, agama, status sosial atau beda iurannya," ujarnya.

Jika ada peserta ingin dirawat pada kelas yang lebih tinggi, kata Ghufron, maka diperbolehkan selama hal itu dipengaruhi situasi nonmedis. Hal itu disebutkan dalam Pasal 51 Perpres Jaminan Kesehatan diatur ketentuan naik kelas perawatan.

Menurut pasal tersebut, naik kelas perawatan dilakukan dengan cara mengikuti asuransi kesehatan tambahan atau membayar selisih antara biaya yang dijamin oleh BPJS Kesehatan dengan biaya yang harus dibayar akibat peningkatan pelayanan.

Selisih antara biaya yang dijamin oleh BPJS Kesehatan dengan biaya pelayanan dapat dibayar oleh peserta bersangkutan, pemberi kerja, atau asuransi kesehatan tambahan.

Ghufron Mukti juga mengimbau pengelola rumah sakit tidak mengurangi jumlah tempat tidur perawatan pasien dalam upaya memenuhi kriteria KRIS. "Pesan saya jangan dikurangi akses dengan mengurangi jumlah tempat tidur. Pertahankan jumlah tempat tidur dan penuhi persyaratannya dengan 12 kriteria tersebut," tegas Ghufron.

Penulis: Firman Hidranto Redaktur: Ratna Nuraini/Elvira Inda Sari Sumber: Indonesia.go.id

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit

Before reading this, see Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit.

The Bitcoin Lightning Network can be thought as a system similar to Ripple: there are conditional IOUs (HTLCs) that are sent in "prepare"-like messages across a route, and a secret p that must travel from the final receiver backwards through the route until it reaches the initial sender and possession of that secret serves to prove the payment as well as to make the IOU hold true.

The difference is that if one of the parties don't send the "acknowledge" in time, the other has a trusted third-party with its own clock (that is the clock that is valid for everybody involved) to complain immediately at the timeout: the Bitcoin blockchain. If C has p and B isn't acknowleding it, C tells the Bitcoin blockchain and it will force the transfer of the amount from B to C.

Differences (or 1 upside and 3 downside)

1. The Lightning Network differs from a "pure" Ripple network in that when we send a "prepare" message on the Lightning Network, unlike on a pure Ripple network we're not just promising we will owe something -- instead we are putting the money on the table already for the other to get if we are not responsive.

2. The feature above removes the trust element from the equation. We can now have relationships with people we don't trust, as the Bitcoin blockchain will serve as an automated escrow for our conditional payments and no one will be harmed. Therefore it is much easier to build networks and route payments if you don't always require trust relationships.

3. However it introduces the cost of the capital. A ton of capital must be made available in channels and locked in HTLCs so payments can be routed. This leads to potential issues like the ones described in https://twitter.com/joostjgr/status/1308414364911841281.

4. Another issue that comes with the necessity of using the Bitcoin blockchain as an arbiter is that it may cost a lot in fees -- much more than the value of the payment that is being disputed -- to enforce it on the blockchain.[^closing-channels-for-nothing]

Solutions

Because the downsides listed above are so real and problematic -- and much more so when attacks from malicious peers are taken into account --, some have argued that the Lightning Network must rely on at least some trust between peers, which partly negate the benefit.

The introduction of purely trust-backend channels is the next step in the reasoning: if we are trusting already, why not make channels that don't touch the blockchain and don't require peers to commit large amounts of capital?

The reason is, again, the ambiguity that comes from the problem of the decentralized commit. Therefore hosted channels can be good when trust is required only from one side, like in the final hops of payments, but they cannot work in the middle of routes without eroding trust relationships between peers (however they can be useful if employed as channels between two nodes ran by the same person).

The next solution is a revamped pure Ripple network, one that solves the problem of the decentralized commit in a different way.

[^closing-channels-for-nothing]: That is even true when, for reasons of the payment being so small that it doesn't even deserve an actual HTLC that can be enforced on the chain (as per the protocol), even then the channel between the two nodes will be closed, only to make it very clear that there was a disagreement. Leaving it online would be harmful as one of the peers could repeat the attack again and again. This is a proof that ambiguity, in case of the pure Ripple network, is a very important issue.

@ d8c59f3c:984e482e

gvfygtftyfftyf

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/459406