@ 599f67f7:21fb3ea9

¿Qué es Blossom?

nostr:nevent1qqspttj39n6ld4plhn4e2mq3utxpju93u4k7w33l3ehxyf0g9lh3f0qpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsygzenanl0hmkjnrq8fksvdhpt67xzrdh0h8agltwt5znsmvzr7e74ywgmr72

Blossom significa Blobs Simply Stored on Media Servers (Blobs Simplemente Almacenados en Servidores de Medios). Blobs son fragmentos de datos binarios, como archivos pero sin nombres. En lugar de nombres, se identifican por su hash sha256. La ventaja de usar hashes sha256 en lugar de nombres es que los hashes son IDs universales que se pueden calcular a partir del archivo mismo utilizando el algoritmo de hash sha256.

💡 archivo -> sha256 -> hash

Blossom es, por lo tanto, un conjunto de puntos finales HTTP que permiten a los usuarios almacenar y recuperar blobs almacenados en servidores utilizando su identidad nostr.

¿Por qué Blossom?

Como mencionamos hace un momento, al usar claves nostr como su identidad, Blossom permite que los datos sean "propiedad" del usuario. Esto simplifica enormemente la cuestión de "qué es spam" para el alojamiento de servidores. Por ejemplo, en nuestro Blossom solo permitimos cargas por miembros de la comunidad verificados que tengan un NIP-05 con nosotros.

Los usuarios pueden subir en múltiples servidores de blossom, por ejemplo, uno alojado por su comunidad, uno de pago, otro público y gratuito, para establecer redundancia de sus datos. Los blobs pueden ser espejados entre servidores de blossom, de manera similar a cómo los relays nostr pueden transmitir eventos entre sí. Esto mejora la resistencia a la censura de blossom.

A continuación se muestra una breve tabla de comparación entre torrents, Blossom y servidores CDN centralizados. (Suponiendo que hay muchos seeders para torrents y se utilizan múltiples servidores con Blossom).

| | Torrents | Blossom | CDN Centralizado | | --------------------------------------------------------------- | -------- | ------- | ---------------- | | Descentralizado | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | | Resistencia a la censura | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | | ¿Puedo usarlo para publicar fotos de gatitos en redes sociales? | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |

¿Cómo funciona?

Blossom utiliza varios tipos de eventos nostr para comunicarse con el servidor de medios.

| kind | descripción | BUD | | ----- | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 24242 | Evento de autorización | BUD01 | | 10063 | Lista de Servidores de Usuarios | BUD03 |

kind:24242 - Autorización

Esto es esencialmente lo que ya describimos al usar claves nostr como IDs de usuario. En el evento, el usuario le dice al servidor que quiere subir o eliminar un archivo y lo firma con sus claves nostr. El servidor realiza algunas verificaciones en este evento y luego ejecuta el comando del usuario si todo parece estar bien.

kind:10063 - Lista de Servidores de Usuarios

Esto es utilizado por el usuario para anunciar a qué servidores de medios está subiendo. De esta manera, cuando el cliente ve esta lista, sabe dónde subir los archivos del usuario. También puede subir en múltiples servidores definidos en la lista para asegurar redundancia. En el lado de recuperación, si por alguna razón uno de los servidores en la lista del usuario está fuera de servicio, o el archivo ya no se puede encontrar allí, el cliente puede usar esta lista para intentar recuperar el archivo de otros servidores en la lista. Dado que los blobs se identifican por sus hashes, el mismo blob tendrá el mismo hash en cualquier servidor de medios. Todo lo que el cliente necesita hacer es cambiar la URL por la de un servidor diferente.

Ahora, además de los conceptos básicos de cómo funciona Blossom, también hay otros tipos de eventos que hacen que Blossom sea aún más interesante.

| kind | descripción | | ----- | --------------------- | | 30563 | Blossom Drives | | 36363 | Listado de Servidores | | 31963 | Reseña de Servidores |

kind:30563 - Blossom Drives

Este tipo de evento facilita la organización de blobs en carpetas, como estamos acostumbrados con los drives (piensa en Google Drive, iCloud, Proton Drive, etc.). El evento contiene información sobre la estructura de carpetas y los metadatos del drive.

kind:36363 y kind:31963 - Listado y Reseña

Estos tipos de eventos permiten a los usuarios descubrir y reseñar servidores de medios a través de nostr. kind:36363 es un listado de servidores que contiene la URL del servidor. kind:31963 es una reseña, donde los usuarios pueden calificar servidores.

¿Cómo lo uso?

Encuentra un servidor

Primero necesitarás elegir un servidor Blossom donde subirás tus archivos. Puedes navegar por los públicos en blossomservers.com. Algunos de ellos son de pago, otros pueden requerir que tus claves nostr estén en una lista blanca.

Luego, puedes ir a la URL de su servidor y probar a subir un archivo pequeño, como una foto. Si estás satisfecho con el servidor (es rápido y aún no te ha fallado), puedes agregarlo a tu Lista de Servidores de Usuarios. Cubriremos brevemente cómo hacer esto en noStrudel y Amethyst (pero solo necesitas hacer esto una vez, una vez que tu lista actualizada esté publicada, los clientes pueden simplemente recuperarla de nostr).

noStrudel

1. Encuentra Relays en la barra lateral, luego elige Servidores de Medios.
2. Agrega un servidor de medios, o mejor aún, varios.
3. Publica tu lista de servidores. ✅

Amethyst

1. En la barra lateral, encuentra Servidores multimedia.
2. Bajo Servidores Blossom, agrega tus servidores de medios.
3. Firma y publica. ✅

Ahora, cuando vayas a hacer una publicación y adjuntar una foto, por ejemplo, se subirá en tu servidor blossom.

⚠️ Ten en cuenta que debes suponer que los archivos que subas serán públicos. Aunque puedes proteger un archivo con contraseña, esto no ha sido auditado.

Blossom Drive

Como mencionamos anteriormente, podemos publicar eventos para organizar nuestros blobs en carpetas. Esto puede ser excelente para compartir archivos con tu equipo, o simplemente para mantener las cosas organizadas.

Para probarlo, ve a blossom.hzrd149.com (o nuestra instancia comunitaria en blossom.bitcointxoko.com) e inicia sesión con tu método preferido.

Puedes crear una nueva unidad y agregar blobs desde allí.

Bouquet

Si usas múltiples servidores para darte redundancia, Bouquet es una buena manera de obtener una visión general de todos tus archivos. Úsalo para subir y navegar por tus medios en diferentes servidores y sincronizar blobs entre ellos.

Cherry Tree

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqfngzhsvjggdlgeycm96x4emzjlwf8dyyzdfg4hefp89zpkdgz99qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzfmhxue69uhkummnw3e82efwvdhk6tcqyp3065hj9zellakecetfflkgudm5n6xcc9dnetfeacnq90y3yxa5z5gk2q6

Cherry Tree te permite dividir un archivo en fragmentos y luego subirlos en múltiples servidores blossom, y más tarde reensamblarlos en otro lugar.

Conclusión

Blossom aún está en desarrollo, pero ya hay muchas cosas interesantes que puedes hacer con él para hacerte a ti y a tu comunidad más soberanos. ¡Pruébalo!

Si deseas mantenerte al día sobre el desarrollo de Blossom, sigue a nostr:nprofile1qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzfmhxue69uhkummnw3e82efwvdhk6tcqyqnxs90qeyssm73jf3kt5dtnk997ujw6ggy6j3t0jjzw2yrv6sy22ysu5ka y dale un gran zap por su excelente trabajo.

Referencias

• hzrd149/blossom en GitHub
• Blossom Drive

@ 29af23a9:842ef0c1

A Indústria Pornográfica se caracteriza pelo investimento pesado de grandes empresários americanos, desde 2014.

Na década de 90, filmes pornográficos eram feitos às coxas. Era basicamente duas pessoas fazendo sexo amador e sendo gravadas. Não tinha roteiro, nem produção, não tinha maquiagem, nada disso. A distribuição era rudimentar, os assinantes tinham que sair de suas casas, ir até a locadora, sofrer todo tipo de constrangimento para assistir a um filme pornô.

No começo dos anos 2000, o serviço de Pay Per View fez o número de vendas de filmes eróticos (filme erótico é bem mais leve) crescer mas nada se compara com os sites de filmes pornográficos por assinatura.

Com o advento dos serviços de Streaming, os sites que vendem filmes por assinatura se estabeleceram no mercado como nunca foi visto na história.

Hoje, os Produtores usam produtos para esticar os vasos sanguíneos do pênis dos atores e dopam as atrizes para que elas aguentem horas de gravação (a Série Black Mirror fez uma crítica a isso no episódio 1 milhão de méritos de forma sutil).

Além de toda a produção em volta das cenas. Que são gravadas em 4K, para focar bem as partes íntimas dos atores. Quadros fechados, iluminação, tudo isso faz essa Indústria ser "Artística" uma vez que tudo ali é falso. Um filme da Produtora Vixen, por exemplo, onde jovens mulheres transam em mansões com seus empresários estimula o esteriótipo da mina padrão que chama seu chefe rico de "daddy" e seduz ele até ele trair a esposa.

Sites como xvídeos, pornHub e outros nada mais são do que sites que salvam filmes dessas produtoras e hospedam as cenas com anúncios e pop-ups. Alguns sites hospedam o filme inteiro "de graça".

Esse tipo de filme estimula qualquer homem heterosexual com menos de 30 anos, que não tem o córtex frontal de seu cérebro totalmente desenvolvido (segundo estudos só é completamente desenvolvido quando o homem chega aos 31 anos).

A arte Pornográfica faz alguns fantasiarem ter relação sexual com uma gostosa americana branquinha, até escraviza-los. Muitos não conseguem sair do vício e preferem a Ficção à sua esposa real. Então pare de se enganar e admita. A Pornografia faz mal para a saúde mental do homem.

Quem sonha em ter uma transa com Lana Rhodes, deve estar nesse estágio. Trata-se de uma atriz (pornstar) que ganhou muito dinheiro vendendo a ilusão da Arte Pornografica, como a Riley Reid que só gravava para grandes Produtoras. Ambas se arrependeram da carreira artística e agora tentam viver suas vidas como uma mulher comum.

As próprias atrizes se consideram artistas, como Mia Malkova, chegou a dizer que Pornografia é a vida dela, que é "Lindo e Sofisticado."

Mia Malkova inclusive faz questão de dizer que a industria não escravisa mulheres jovens. Trata-se de um negócio onde a mulher assina um contrato com uma produtora e recebe um cachê por isso. Diferente do discurso da Mia Khalifa em entrevista para a BBC, onde diz que as mulheres são exploradas por homens poderosos. Vai ela está confundindo o Conglomerado Vixen com a Rede Globo ou com a empresa do Harvey Weinstein.

Enfim, se você é um homem solteiro entre 18 e 40 anos que já consumiu ou que ainda consome pornografia, sabia que sofrerá consequências. Pois trata-se de "produções artísticas" da indústria audiovisual que altera os níveis de dopamina do seu cérebro, mudando a neuroplasticidade e diminuindo a massa cinzenta, deixando o homem com memória fraca, sem foco e com mente nebulosa.

Por que o Estado não proíbe/criminaliza a Pornografia se ela faz mal? E desde quando o Estado quer o nosso bem? Existem grandes empresarios que financiam essa indústria ajudando governos a manterem o povo viciado e assim alienado. É um pão e circo, só que muito mais viciante e maléfico. Eu costume dizer aos meus amigos que existem grandes empresários jvdeus que são donos de grandes Produtoras de filmes pornográficos como o Conglomerado Vixen. Então se eles assistem vídeos pirateados de filmes dessas produtoras, eles estão no colo do Judeu.

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

備忘録として書きます。意外と時間がかかりました。全体で1時間くらいかかるので気長にやりましょう。 仮想通貨取引所(販売所ではないので、玄人が使えばお得らしい）かつBitcoinの送金手数料が無料(全ての取引所が無料ではない、例えばbitbankは0.0006bitcoinかかる)なので送金元はGMOコインを使います。(注意:GMOコインは0.02ビットコイン以下は全額送金になってしまいます) 今回はカストディアルウォレットのWallet of Satoshiに送金します。 以下手順 1. GMOコインでbitcoinを買います。 2. GMOコインの左のタブから入出金 暗号資産を選択します。 3. 送付のタブを開いて、+新しい宛先を追加するを選択します。 4. 送付先:GMOコイン以外、送付先ウォレット：プライベートウォレット(MetaMaskなど)、受取人：ご本人さま　を選んで宛先情報の登録を選ぶと次の画面になります。
5. 宛先名称にwallet of satoshi(これはなんでも良いです わかりやすい名称にしましょう)　wallet of satoshiを開いて、受信→Bitcoin On-Chainからアドレスをコピーして、ビットコインアドレスに貼り付けます。
6. 登録するを押します。これで送金先の登録ができました。GMOコインの審査がありますがすぐ終わると思います。 7. ここから送金をします。送付のタブから登録したビットコインの宛先リストwallet of satoshiを選択し、送付数量と送付目的を選択して、2段階認証をします。
8. 実行を押せば終わりです。もうあなたがやることはありません。送金が終わるのを40分くらい眺めるだけです。
8. 取引履歴のタブから今の送金のステータスが見れます。
9. 15分くらい待つとステータスが受付に変わります。
10. 20分くらい待つとトランザクションIDが表示されます。


この時点からwallet of satoshiにも送金されていることが表示されます。(まだ完了はしていない)

11. ステータスが完了になったら送金終わりです。

wallet of satoshiにも反映されます。

---

お疲れ様でした！

@ cffd7b79:dd8ca91f

Introductory

That right folks, it is called Satlantis. An upcoming game that is based on Minecraft. It uses a game engine called Launti/Minetest that has been in development since 2023, but it is unclear when it will be released. It is small team of bitcoin enthusiasts of 3-5 game developers.

Their Origin Story

It started out as a Minecraft server around 2018. It was prosperous with many players up to 100 players for just a SMP Server. Then on 2023, Mojang Studios contacted the owner of the server to shut it down due to have a play-to-earn function.

Their Discord Server

In their discord server, you can now earn their own currency called joules which can be earned by playing Counter Strike 2, Fortnite or Dead by Daylight. The joules then can be exchange for sats. If you wanna invest your sats into it, you can buy ASICs through the auction which is fueled by joules which gives you sats in return by the hour.

In Conclusion

From Minecraft to Minetest, it has great potential for such a game nowadays since not only its through some dApp currency scheme, but its straightforward process. if you want to see their site it is at Satlantis.net.

I am Chrissy Sage and I am out!

@ b83e6f82:73c27758

Citrine 0.7.1

• Add the restore follows button back
• Show notification when backing up database
• Listen for pokey broadcasts

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-v0.7.1.txt and manifest-v0.7.1.txt.sig are in the current directory) with:

bash gpg --verify manifest-v0.7.1.txt.sig manifest-v0.7.1.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-v0.7.1.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.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

---

CHECK OUT at ~ > ramix.minibolt.info < ~

---

Main changes:

• Adapted to Raspberry Pi 5, with the possibility of using internal storage: a PCIe to M.2 adapter + SSD NVMe:

  Connect directly to the board, remove the instability issues with the USB connection, and unlock the ability to enjoy higher transfer speeds**

• Based on Debian 12 (Raspberry Pi OS Bookworm - 64-bit).
• Updated all services that have been tested until now, to the latest version.
• Same as the MiniBolt guide, changed I2P, Fulcrum, and ThunderHub guides, to be part of the core guide.
• All UI & UX improvements in the MiniBolt guide are included.
• Fix some links and wrong command issues.
• Some existing guides have been improved to clarify the following steps.

---

Important notes:

• The RRSS will be the same as the MiniBolt original project (for now) | More info -> HERE <-
• The common resources like the Roadmap or Networkmap have been merged and will be used together | Check -> HERE <-
• The attempt to upgrade from Bullseye to Bookworm (RaspiBolt to RaMiX migration) has failed due to several difficult-to-resolve dependency conflicts, so unfortunately, there will be no dedicated migration guide and only the possibility to start from scratch ☹️

⚠️ Attention‼️-> This guide is in the WIP (work in progress) state and hasn't been completely tested yet. Many steps may be incorrect. Pay special attention to the "Status: Not tested on RaMiX" tag at the beginning of the guides. Be careful and act behind your responsibility.

---

For Raspberry Pi lovers!❤️🍓

Enjoy it RaMiXer!! 💜

---

By ⚡2FakTor⚡ for the plebs with love ❤️🫂

@ a10260a2:caa23e3e

Last Updated: January 18, 2025

First off, big shoutout to Coinos for having support for adding a memo to BOLT12 offers. This provides a solid alternative for the pleb who wants to support mining decentralization but doesn’t want to set up a CLN node and pay thousands of sats for a channel only to get little rewards. This is the case for most of us who only have a miner or two (e.g. a Bitaxe and/or an S9).

Before we get into setting up Lightning payouts, you’ll want to have your miner configured to mine with OCEAN of course. You’ll also want to make sure that the bitcoin address you use is from a wallet that supports signing messages.

These are the ones listed in the OCEAN docs:

• Bitcoin Knots/Bitcoin Core
• Coldcard
• Electrum
• LND (Command Line)
• Seedsigner
• Sparrow
• Specter
• Trezor

I checked one of my favorite, user-friendly wallets — Blue Wallet — and it happens to support signing messages as well.

Just tap the three dots on the upper right and you’ll see the “Sign/Verify Message” button at the bottom.

Update [January 18]: You can now use Coinos to sign by going to https://coinos.io/sign

The trick here is to not refresh the page. In other words, when you're logged in to your Coinos account, go to the URL and use the legacy address (starts with a "1") that's displayed to configure your miner(s). If you refresh the page, you're going to get a new address which will cause the signing to fail later on. Remember, keep the tab open and don't refresh the page.

Whichever wallet you choose, generate a receive address to use when configuring your miner (it’ll also be your OCEAN username).

Here’s how it looks on the Bitaxe (AxeOS)…

And the Antminer S9 (Braiins OS).

NOTE: There’s a slight difference in the URL format between the two apps. Other than that, the username will be your bitcoin address followed by the optional “.” + the nickname for your machine.

You can find more details on OCEAN’s get started page.

---

Alright, now that your miner is pointed at OCEAN. Let’s configure Lightning payouts!

Generating the BOLT12 Offer

In the Coinos app, go to Receive > Bolt 12.

Tap “Set memo” and set it to “OCEAN Payouts for [insert your bitcoin address]” (this text is case-sensitive). Use the same bitcoin address you used above to configure your miner(s).

After tapping OK, copy the BOLT12 offer (it should start with “lno”) and proceed to the next step.

Generating the Configuration Message

Navigate to the My Stats page by searching for your OCEAN Bitcoin address.

The click the Configuration link next to Next Block to access the configuration form.

Paste the BOLT12 offer here, update the block height to latest, click GENERATE, and copy the generated unsigned message.

Signing the Configuration Message

To sign the generated message, go back to Blue Wallet and use the signing function. Paste the configuration message in the Message field, tap Sign, and copy the signed message that’s generated.

If you're using Coinos to sign, return to the page that you kept open (and didn't refresh) and do the same. Paste the configuration message, click submit, and copy the signed message.

Submitting the Signed Message

Once signed, copy the signature, paste it in the OCEAN configuration form, and click CONFIRM.

If all goes well, you should see a confirmation that the configuration was successful. Congrats! 🎉

All you gotta do now is sit back, relax, and wait for a block to be found…

Or you can look into setting up DATUM. 😎

@ 2fb77d26:c47a6ee1

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

wenn wir an Schlachtfelder denken, sehen wir vor unserem inneren Auge düstere Bilder von verkohlten Wracks, von Einschlagkratern, schreienden Verwundeten, Leichen und dichten Rauchschwaden, die am Horizont über verbrannter Erde wabern.

Vergleichbare Assoziationen drängen sich auf, versucht man in Bilder zu fassen, in was für einer Gesellschaft wir mittlerweile leben. Intellektuelle Wracks, mediales Flächenbombardement, stumme Schreie von Pharmaopfern und hungernden Kindern, weggescrollt von Smartphone-Zombies, deren letzter Hauch Empathie am Rande ihres dissoziativen Wahrnehmungshorizontes verblasst. Zivilisatorische Transformation als Kriegsfilm.

Früher verliefen die Frontlinien von Klassenkampf und Propagandakrieg durch die Auslagen der Zeitungskioske, durch Rundfunkredaktionen und über die nach Sendeschluss flimmernden Bildschirme der Mattscheibe. Heute durch den Kopf.

Sprichwörtlich. Denn die »Vierte Industrielle Revolution« begegnet zunehmendem Desinteresse an Erziehungsfunk und aufkeimender Renitenz mit Dopamin-Shots, Implantaten und Nanotechnologie. Das erklärte Ziel der Herrschaftskaste ist nicht mehr die Manipulation, sondern die Fernsteuerung der Steuersklaven. Das »Hive Mind«.

Sendeschluss gibt es nicht mehr. Und der Newsfeed ist unerschöpflich, ist Manifestation dessen, was Aufmerksamkeitsökonomie für uns bedeutet: Den Verlust wertvoller Lebenszeit an neonbunte Sinnlosigkeit. Das Smartphone dient nicht der Evolution, sondern der Degeneration der Spezies Mensch. Es ist kein Werkzeug, sondern eine Waffe. Aber das Handy lässt sich — wie das TV-Gerät — abschalten. Oder abschaffen. Das birgt Risiken — denn nur Lufthoheit über dem Debattenraum garantiert dem postmodernen Feudalismus Machterhalt. Dementsprechend setzen seine Vertreter nun alles daran, invasive Technologien ins Feld zu führen, um sich unserer Gedanken bemächtigen zu können.

Der Kriegsfilm spielt sich also nicht mehr nur als dunkles Phantasma vor unserem inneren Auge ab, er handelt nicht von irgendeinem fernen Land — das zu erobernde Terrain, das primäre Schlachtfeld der biodigitalen Konvergenz liegt unmittelbar hinter dem Sehnerv. Kriegsziel: Die Verschmelzung von Mensch und Maschine. Transhumanismus. Und bei so manchem Zeitgenossen scheint bereits eine gewisse Konträrfaszination am eigenen Untergang Einzug zu halten. Die Résistance des Mediazän verteidigt demnach nicht nur das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit, sie kämpft um den Erhalt des freien Willens. Um Menschlichkeit. Um das Fortbestehen unserer Spezies.

Vor diesem Hintergrund beschäftigt sich die dritte GEGENDRUCK mit dem »Schlachtfeld Gehirn«. Mit dem zerebralen Status quo. Die Autoren analysieren und dokumentieren den Stand von Forschung, Angriffswellen, Waffenarsenal und Verteidigungsmechanismen. Denn unser Leben ist das Produkt unserer Gedanken. Unserer Erinnerungen. Sie sind die Basis unserer Freiheit, unserer Geschichte und Zukunft. Wir müssen sie schützen. Mit allen Mitteln.

Denn »ein Kopf ohne Gedächtnis ist eine Festung ohne Besatzung« (Napoleon).

Im Namen des gesamten Teams,

Tom-Oliver Regenauer

Printausgabe bestellen unter: www.gegendruck.de

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued new guidance halting spending on most foreign aid grants for 90 days, including military assistance to Ukraine. This immediate order shocked State Department officials and mandates “stop-work orders” on nearly all existing foreign assistance awards.

While it allows exceptions for military financing to Egypt and Israel, as well as emergency food assistance, it restricts aid to key allies like Ukraine, Jordan, and Taiwan. The guidance raises potential liability risks for the government due to unfulfilled contracts.

A report will be prepared within 85 days to recommend which programs to continue or discontinue.

@ 7f29628d:e160cccc

Der gut informierte Bürger denkt bei der Pandemie sofort an Intensivstationen, an die Bilder aus Bergamo und erinnert sich an die Berichterstattung damals – also muss es wohl ein Maximum gewesen sein. Manche Skeptiker behaupten jedoch das Gegenteil. Klarheit sollte ein Blick nach Wiesbaden, zum Statistischen Bundesamt, schaffen. Schließlich sitzen dort gut bezahlte Profis, die seit vielen Jahrzehnten die Sterbestatistik pflegen und veröffentlichen. Jeder Todesfall wird in Deutschland über die Standesämter exakt erfasst.

Doch die Überraschung: Das Statistische Bundesamt liefert uns auf diese einfache Frage zwei extrem unterschiedliche Antworten – ein Minimum und ein Maximum. Das Ergebnis hängt davon ab, wie tief man in die Veröffentlichungen des Bundesamtes eintaucht. Betrachtet man nur die Webseiten und Pressemitteilungen, erhält man den Eindruck eines Maximums. Schaut man jedoch etwas tiefer in die Tabellen und Rohdaten, zeigt sich plötzlich ein Minimum. Aber wie kann das sein? Beides gleichzeitig geht ja wohl kaum. Wer lügt hier – die Tabellen des Amtes oder die Pressemitteilungen? Gehen wir dieser Frage Schritt für Schritt auf den Grund.

2020: Ein historisches Maximum?

Schauen wir uns die vielen Hundert Veröffentlichungen des Statistischen Bundesamtes aus dieser Zeit an. Oder wir kürzen ab und fragen ChatGPT, da die KI auf diesen Daten trainiert wurde und das gesamte Material kennt. Die Frage an ChatGPT lautet also: Wie war das Sterbegeschehen im Jahr 2020 im Vergleich zu den Vorjahren?

ChatGPT antwortet: »Im Jahr 2020 war die Sterblichkeit in Deutschland höher als in den Jahren zuvor. Es gab eine Übersterblichkeit von etwa 982.000 Todesfällen, das sind rund 46.000 mehr als der Durchschnitt der Vorjahre (2016 bis 2019). Dieser Anstieg wurde überwiegend im Zusammenhang mit der COVID-19-Pandemie gesehen. Während die Sterbezahlen in den Vorjahren schwankten, war ein solch signifikanter Anstieg wie 2020 bisher nicht zu beobachten.«

Wir fragen konkreter: Ist es ein Fakt, dass wir eine so ernste Lage im Sterbegeschehen wie im Frühjahr 2020 noch nie erlebt haben?

ChatGPT bestätigt: »Ja, die COVID-19-Pandemie führte im Frühjahr 2020 zu einer außergewöhnlichen Situation im Sterbegeschehen in Deutschland. Die dramatische Übersterblichkeit, die ab der 13. Kalenderwoche auftrat, veranlasste das Statistische Bundesamt, besonders eindringliche Warnungen zu veröffentlichen. Der damalige Vizepräsident des Amtes und andere führende Stimmen wiesen öffentlich darauf hin, dass die Todesfallzahlen stark vom Durchschnitt abwichen. Diese klare Warnung richtete sich an die Öffentlichkeit und die Politik gleichermaßen. Die Medien berichteten intensiv über diese Warnungen, was das Bewusstsein für die Schwere der Pandemie erheblich schärfte. In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten hatte es keine vergleichbare Übersterblichkeit gegeben, die eine solch umfangreiche Kommunikation durch das Statistische Bundesamt erforderlich gemacht hätte.«

Ein gut informierter Zeitungsleser wird sich an dieser Stelle bestätigt fühlen: Ja, so war es damals. Ein Maximum im Sterbegeschehen – wegen der Pandemie. Oder etwa nicht?

2020: Ein historisches Minimum?

Tauchen wir in die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes ein. Die Tabellen, die das Amt seit Jahrzehnten verlässlich veröffentlicht, nennen sich Sterbetafeln. Diese werden jährlich bereitgestellt und stehen auf der Website des Bundesamtes zum Download bereit. Ein erster Blick in die Sterbetafeln mag den Laien abschrecken, doch mit einer kurzen Erklärung wird alles verständlich. Wir gehen schrittweise vor.

Nehmen wir die Sterbetafel des Jahres 2017. Sie enthält zwei große Tabellen – eine für Männer und eine für Frauen. Jede Zeile der Tabelle steht für einen Jahrgang, zum Beispiel zeigt die Zeile 79 die Daten der 79-jährigen Männer. Besonders wichtig ist nun die zweite Spalte, in der der Wert 0,05 eingetragen ist. Das bedeutet, dass 5 Prozent der 79-jährigen Männer im Jahr 2017 verstorben sind. Das ist die wichtige Kennzahl. Wenn wir diesen exakten Wert, den man auch als Sterberate bezeichnet, nun in ein Säulendiagramm eintragen, erhalten wir eine leicht verständliche visuelle Darstellung (Grafik 1).

Es ist wichtig zu betonen, dass dieser Wert weder ein Schätzwert noch eine Modellrechnung oder Prognose ist, sondern ein exakter Messwert, basierend auf einer zuverlässigen Zählung. Sterberaten (für die Fachleute auch Sterbewahrscheinlichkeiten qx) sind seit Johann Peter Süßmilch (1707–1767) der Goldstandard der Sterbestatistik. Jeder Aktuar wird das bestätigen. Fügen wir nun die Sterberaten der 79-jährigen Männer aus den Jahren davor und danach hinzu, um das Gesamtbild zu sehen (Grafik 2). Und nun die entscheidende Frage: Zeigt das Jahr 2020 ein Maximum oder ein Minimum?

Ein kritischer Leser könnte vermuten, dass die 79-jährigen Männer eine Ausnahme darstellen und andere Jahrgänge im Jahr 2020 ein Maximum zeigen würden. Doch das trifft nicht zu. Kein einziger Jahrgang verzeichnete im Jahr 2020 ein Maximum. Im Gegenteil: Auch die 1-Jährigen, 2-Jährigen, 3-Jährigen, 9-Jährigen, 10-Jährigen, 15-Jährigen, 18-Jährigen und viele weitere männliche Jahrgänge hatten ihr Minimum im Jahr 2020. Dasselbe gilt bei den Frauen. Insgesamt hatten 31 Jahrgänge ihr Minimum im Jahr 2020. Wenn wir schließlich alle Jahrgänge in einer einzigen Grafik zusammenfassen, ergibt sich ein klares Bild: Das Minimum im Sterbegeschehen lag im Jahr 2020 (Grafik 3).

Ein kritischer Leser könnte nun wiederum vermuten, dass es innerhalb des Jahres 2020 möglicherweise starke Ausschläge nach oben bei einzelnen Jahrgängen gegeben haben könnte, die später durch Ausschläge nach unten ausgeglichen wurden – und dass diese Schwankungen in der jährlichen Übersicht nicht sichtbar sind. Doch auch das trifft nicht zu. Ein Blick auf die wöchentlichen Sterberaten zeigt, dass die ersten acht Monate der Pandemie keine nennenswerten Auffälligkeiten aufweisen. Es bleibt dabei: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes bestätigen zweifelsfrei, dass die ersten acht Monate der Pandemie das historische Minimum im Sterbegeschehen darstellen. (Für die Fachleute sei angemerkt, dass im gleichen Zeitraum die Lebenserwartung die historischen Höchststände erreicht hatte – Grafik 4.)

So konstruierte das Amt aus einem Minimum ein Maximum:

Zur Erinnerung: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes, die in den jährlichen Sterbetafeln zweifelsfrei dokumentiert sind, zeigen für das Jahr 2020 eindeutig ein Minimum im Sterbegeschehen. Aus diesen »in Stein gemeißelten« Zahlen ein Maximum zu »konstruieren«, ohne die Rohdaten selbst zu verändern, scheint auf den ersten Blick eine unlösbare Aufgabe. Jeder Student würde an einer solchen Herausforderung scheitern. Doch das Statistische Bundesamt hat einen kreativen Weg gefunden - ein Meisterstück gezielter Manipulation. In fünf Schritten zeigt sich, wie diese Täuschung der Öffentlichkeit umgesetzt wurde:

(1) Ignorieren der Sterberaten: Die präzisen, objektiven und leicht verständlichen Sterberaten aus den eigenen Sterbetafeln wurden konsequent ignoriert und verschwiegen. Diese Daten widersprachen dem gewünschten Narrativ und wurden daher gezielt ausgeklammert.

(2) Fokus auf absolute Todeszahlen: Die Aufmerksamkeit wurde stattdessen auf die absolute Zahl der Todesfälle gelenkt. Diese wirkt allein durch ihre schiere Größe dramatisch und emotionalisiert die Diskussion. Ein entscheidender Faktor wurde dabei ignoriert: Die absolute Zahl der Todesfälle steigt aufgrund der demografischen Entwicklung jedes Jahr an. Viele Menschen verstehen diesen Zusammenhang nicht und verbinden die steigenden Zahlen fälschlicherweise mit der vermeintlichen Pandemie.

(3) Einführung der Übersterblichkeit als neue Kennzahl: Erst ab Beginn der „Pandemie“ wurde die Kennzahl "Übersterblichkeit" eingeführt – und dies mit einer fragwürdigen Methode, die systematisch überhöhte Werte lieferte. Diese Kennzahl wurde regelmäßig, oft monatlich oder sogar wöchentlich, berechnet und diente als ständige Grundlage für alarmierende Schlagzeilen.

(4) Intensive Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Durch eine breit angelegte Kampagne wurden die manipulativen Kennzahlen gezielt in den Fokus gerückt. Pressemitteilungen, Podcasts und öffentliche Auftritte konzentrierten sich fast ausschließlich auf die absoluten Todeszahlen und die Übersterblichkeit. Ziel war es, den Eindruck einer dramatischen Situation in der Öffentlichkeit zu verstärken.

(5) Bekämpfen kritischer Stimmen: Kritiker, die die Schwächen und manipulativen Aspekte dieser Methoden aufdeckten, wurden systematisch diskreditiert. Ihre Glaubwürdigkeit und Kompetenz wurden öffentlich infrage gestellt, um das sorgsam konstruierte Narrativ zu schützen.

Ohne diesen begleitenden Statistik-Betrug wäre das gesamte Pandemie-Theater meiner Meinung nach nicht möglich gewesen. Wer aus einem faktischen Minimum ein scheinbares Maximum "erschafft", handelt betrügerisch. Die Folgen dieses Betruges sind gravierend. Denken wir an die Angst, die in der Bevölkerung geschürt wurde – die Angst, bald sterben zu müssen. Denken wir an Masken, Abstandsregeln, isolierte ältere Menschen, Kinderimpfungen und all die Maßnahmen, die unter anderem auf diese falsche Statistik zurückgehen.

Wollen wir Bürger uns das gefallen lassen?

Wenn wir als Bürger zulassen, dass ein derart offensichtlicher und nachprüfbarer Täuschungsversuch ohne Konsequenzen bleibt, dann gefährdet das nicht nur die Integrität unserer Institutionen – es untergräbt das Fundament unserer Gesellschaft. In der DDR feierte man öffentlich Planerfüllung und Übererfüllung, während die Regale leer blieben. Damals wusste jeder: Statistik war ein Propagandainstrument. Niemand traute den Zahlen, die das Staatsfernsehen verkündete.

Während der Pandemie war es anders. Die Menschen vertrauten den Mitteilungen des Statistischen Bundesamtes und des RKI – blind. Die Enthüllungen durch den "RKI-Leak" haben gezeigt, dass auch das Robert-Koch-Institut nicht der Wissenschaft, sondern den Weisungen des Gesundheitsministers und militärischen Vorgaben folgte. Warum sollte es beim Statistischen Bundesamt anders gewesen sein? Diese Behörde ist dem Innenministerium unterstellt und somit ebenfalls weisungsgebunden.

Die Beweise für Täuschung liegen offen zutage. Es braucht keinen Whistleblower, keine geheimen Enthüllungen: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes sprechen für sich. Sie sind öffentlich einsehbar – klar und unmissverständlich. Die Daten, die Tabellen, die Veröffentlichungen des Amtes selbst – sie sind die Anklageschrift. Sie zeigen, was wirklich war. Nicht mehr und nicht weniger.

Und wir? Was tun wir? Schweigen wir? Oder fordern wir endlich ein, was unser Recht ist? Wir Bürger dürfen das nicht hinnehmen. Es ist Zeit, unsere Behörden zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen. Diese Institutionen arbeiten nicht für sich – sie arbeiten für uns. Wir finanzieren sie, und wir haben das Recht, Transparenz und Verantwortung einzufordern. Manipulationen wie diese müssen aufgearbeitet werden und dürfen nie wieder geschehen. Die Strukturen, die solche Fehlentwicklungen in unseren Behörden ermöglicht haben, müssen offengelegt werden. Denn eine Demokratie lebt von Vertrauen – und Vertrauen muss verdient werden. Jeden Tag aufs Neue.

.

.

MARCEL BARZ, Jahrgang 1975, war Offizier der Bundeswehr und studierte Wirtschafts- und Organisationswissenschaften sowie Wirtschaftsinformatik. Er war Gründer und Geschäftsführer einer Softwarefirma, die sich auf Datenanalyse und Softwareentwicklung spezialisiert hatte. Im August 2021 veröffentlichte Barz den Videovortrag »Die Pandemie in den Rohdaten«, der über eine Million Aufrufe erzielte. Seitdem macht er als "Erbsenzähler" auf Widersprüche in amtlichen Statistiken aufmerksam.

@ 378562cd:a6fc6773

Top 20 U.S.-Based Cryptocurrency Headlines:

1. Pete Hegseth Confirmed as Secretary of Defense Amid Crypto Talks\ The newly confirmed Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has hinted at exploring blockchain applications for national security and defense logistics.

2. Senate to Debate Cryptocurrency Taxation Reform\ A bipartisan bill focusing on cryptocurrency taxation is set for Senate debate, aiming to simplify tax reporting and encourage blockchain innovation.

3. Florida Launches State-Backed Blockchain Pilot Program\ Florida has initiated a pilot program leveraging blockchain for state services, including property records and public benefits distribution.

4. Silicon Valley Firms Ramp Up Blockchain Development\ Tech giants in Silicon Valley, including Meta and Google, have announced increased investments in blockchain R&D to align with U.S. policy shifts.

5. California Mulls Digital Asset Consumer Protection Bill\ California lawmakers are reviewing a proposed bill designed to strengthen consumer protections in cryptocurrency transactions and prevent fraud.

6. Wyoming Leads in Blockchain Legislation\ Wyoming continues to set the standard for pro-blockchain legislation, introducing additional laws to attract cryptocurrency businesses and miners.

7. Texas Becomes a Hub for Crypto Mining\ Texas remains a hotbed for cryptocurrency mining operations, with favorable regulations and abundant energy resources attracting global miners.

8. New York Revisits BitLicense Regulations\ The New York Department of Financial Services is revising its stringent BitLicense requirements, seeking to balance industry growth and consumer protection.

9. SEC Proposes Clearer Guidelines for ICOs\ The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed new rules to clarify and reduce ambiguity surrounding initial coin offerings (ICOs).

10. Banking Giants Reenter Crypto Markets\ JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs are reportedly resuming their cryptocurrency trading desks, reflecting renewed institutional confidence in the market.

11. Crypto Job Market Expands in the U.S.\ Major crypto companies, including Coinbase and Kraken, are expanding hiring efforts, focusing on compliance, engineering, and product development roles.

12. U.S. Treasury Collaborates with Private Sector on Blockchain Security\ The U.S. Treasury has launched a joint initiative with private companies to enhance blockchain cybersecurity and combat crypto-related crimes.

13. Nevada Considers Tax Incentives for Crypto Startups\ Nevada legislators are discussing tax breaks for cryptocurrency startups to attract more tech companies to the state.

14. Miami Hosts Blockchain Week\ Miami has kicked off Blockchain Week, drawing thousands of participants from around the world to discuss cryptocurrency innovation and regulation.

15. Colorado Accepts Tax Payments in Cryptocurrency\ Colorado residents can now pay state taxes using Bitcoin and Ethereum, marking a milestone in government adoption of digital currencies.

16. Boston Dynamics Explores Blockchain in Robotics\ Boston Dynamics has announced research into using blockchain technology to enhance coordination and security for robotic systems.

17. Crypto Payments Expand in the Retail Sector\ Major U.S. retailers, including Walmart and Home Depot, are piloting cryptocurrency payment systems in select locations.

18. Federal Reserve Examines Decentralized Finance (DeFi)\ The Federal Reserve has initiated a study on the potential implications and opportunities of decentralized finance within the U.S. economy.

19. Chicago Becomes a Cryptocurrency Innovation Hub\ Chicago has unveiled a public-private initiative to attract blockchain startups and establish the city as a leading hub for cryptocurrency innovation.

20. Arizona Proposes Bitcoin as Legal Tender\ Arizona legislators are drafting a bill recognizing Bitcoin as legal tender, potentially making it the first U.S. state to do so.

---

Top 5 Worldwide Cryptocurrency Headlines:

1. European Union Accelerates Crypto Regulation Framework\ The EU is working on comprehensive legislation to standardize cryptocurrency regulations across member states, focusing on consumer protection and innovation.

2. China's Shadow Crypto Market Flourishes Despite Crackdowns\ Despite stringent bans, underground cryptocurrency trading in China continues to thrive, fueled by over-the-counter brokers and international platforms.

3. India Explores Blockchain Voting Systems\ India is piloting blockchain technology for secure and transparent voting, aiming to modernize its electoral process.

4. El Salvador Expands Bitcoin Adoption Programs\ El Salvador, the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, is launching new programs to educate its citizens on cryptocurrency use and blockchain technology.

5. African Nations Adopt Bitcoin for Cross-Border Transactions\ African countries increasingly leverage Bitcoin to streamline cross-border trade, addressing inefficiencies in traditional banking systems.

@ 6b57533f:eaa341f5

Page 1

Welcome to Stories

This is a new way to tell stories on nostr.

Some content in the middle of the page.

Read More

Swipe left to continue...

Page 2

Top Info

This text appears at the top of the page.

Important Point

This content is centered in the middle.

Bottom Line

And this wraps it up at the bottom.

Page 3

The End

Thanks for reading! This text appears at the bottom.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Since its creation in 2009, Bitcoin has symbolized innovation and resilience. However, from time to time, alarmist narratives arise about emerging technologies that could "break" its security. Among these, quantum computing stands out as one of the most recurrent. But does quantum computing truly threaten Bitcoin? And more importantly, what is the community doing to ensure the protocol remains invulnerable?

The answer, contrary to sensationalist headlines, is reassuring: Bitcoin is secure, and the community is already preparing for a future where quantum computing becomes a practical reality. Let’s dive into this topic to understand why the concerns are exaggerated and how the development of BIP-360 demonstrates that Bitcoin is one step ahead.

---

What Is Quantum Computing, and Why Is Bitcoin Not Threatened?

Quantum computing leverages principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations that, in theory, could exponentially surpass classical computers—and it has nothing to do with what so-called “quantum coaches” teach to scam the uninformed. One of the concerns is that this technology could compromise two key aspects of Bitcoin’s security:

1. Wallets: These use elliptic curve algorithms (ECDSA) to protect private keys. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could deduce a private key from its public key.
2. Mining: This is based on the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the consensus process. A quantum attack could, in theory, compromise the proof-of-work mechanism.

---

Understanding Quantum Computing’s Attack Priorities

While quantum computing is often presented as a threat to Bitcoin, not all parts of the network are equally vulnerable. Theoretical attacks would be prioritized based on two main factors: ease of execution and potential reward. This creates two categories of attacks:

1. Attacks on Wallets

Bitcoin wallets, secured by elliptic curve algorithms, would be the initial targets due to the relative vulnerability of their public keys, especially those already exposed on the blockchain. Two attack scenarios stand out:

• Short-term attacks: These occur during the interval between sending a transaction and its inclusion in a block (approximately 10 minutes). A quantum computer could intercept the exposed public key and derive the corresponding private key to redirect funds by creating a transaction with higher fees.

• Long-term attacks: These focus on old wallets whose public keys are permanently exposed. Wallets associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, for example, are especially vulnerable because they were created before the practice of using hashes to mask public keys.

We can infer a priority order for how such attacks might occur based on urgency and importance.

Bitcoin Quantum Attack: Prioritization Matrix (Urgency vs. Importance)

2. Attacks on Mining

Targeting the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the mining process, would be the next objective. However, this is far more complex and requires a level of quantum computational power that is currently non-existent and far from realization. A successful attack would allow for the recalculation of all possible hashes to dominate the consensus process and potentially "mine" it instantly.

---

Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin Attacks

Recently, Narcelio asked me about a statement I made on Tubacast:

https://x.com/eddieoz/status/1868371296683511969

If an attack became a reality before Bitcoin was prepared, it would be necessary to define the last block prior to the attack and proceed from there using a new hashing algorithm. The solution would resemble the response to the infamous 2013 bug. It’s a fact that this would cause market panic, and Bitcoin's price would drop significantly, creating a potential opportunity for the well-informed.

Preferably, if developers could anticipate the threat and had time to work on a solution and build consensus before an attack, they would simply decide on a future block for the fork, which would then adopt the new algorithm. It might even rehash previous blocks (reaching consensus on them) to avoid potential reorganization through the re-mining of blocks using the old hash. (I often use the term "shielding" old transactions).

---

How Can Users Protect Themselves?

While quantum computing is still far from being a practical threat, some simple measures can already protect users against hypothetical scenarios:

• Avoid using exposed public keys: Ensure funds sent to old wallets are transferred to new ones that use public key hashes. This reduces the risk of long-term attacks.
• Use modern wallets: Opt for wallets compatible with SegWit or Taproot, which implement better security practices.
• Monitor security updates: Stay informed about updates from the Bitcoin community, such as the implementation of BIP-360, which will introduce quantum-resistant addresses.
• Do not reuse addresses: Every transaction should be associated with a new address to minimize the risk of repeated exposure of the same public key.
• Adopt secure backup practices: Create offline backups of private keys and seeds in secure locations, protected from unauthorized access.

---

BIP-360 and Bitcoin’s Preparation for the Future

Even though quantum computing is still beyond practical reach, the Bitcoin community is not standing still. A concrete example is BIP-360, a proposal that establishes the technical framework to make wallets resistant to quantum attacks.

BIP-360 addresses three main pillars:

1. Introduction of quantum-resistant addresses: A new address format starting with "BC1R" will be used. These addresses will be compatible with post-quantum algorithms, ensuring that stored funds are protected from future attacks.
2. Compatibility with the current ecosystem: The proposal allows users to transfer funds from old addresses to new ones without requiring drastic changes to the network infrastructure.
3. Flexibility for future updates: BIP-360 does not limit the choice of specific algorithms. Instead, it serves as a foundation for implementing new post-quantum algorithms as technology evolves.

This proposal demonstrates how Bitcoin can adapt to emerging threats without compromising its decentralized structure.

---

Post-Quantum Algorithms: The Future of Bitcoin Cryptography

The community is exploring various algorithms to protect Bitcoin from quantum attacks. Among the most discussed are:

• Falcon: A solution combining smaller public keys with compact digital signatures. Although it has been tested in limited scenarios, it still faces scalability and performance challenges.
• Sphincs: Hash-based, this algorithm is renowned for its resilience, but its signatures can be extremely large, making it less efficient for networks like Bitcoin’s blockchain.
• Lamport: Created in 1977, it’s considered one of the earliest post-quantum security solutions. Despite its reliability, its gigantic public keys (16,000 bytes) make it impractical and costly for Bitcoin.

Two technologies show great promise and are well-regarded by the community:

1. Lattice-Based Cryptography: Considered one of the most promising, it uses complex mathematical structures to create systems nearly immune to quantum computing. Its implementation is still in its early stages, but the community is optimistic.
2. Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny: These are very recent digital signature algorithms and require extensive study and testing before being ready for practical market use.

The final choice of algorithm will depend on factors such as efficiency, cost, and integration capability with the current system. Additionally, it is preferable that these algorithms are standardized before implementation, a process that may take up to 10 years.

---

Why Quantum Computing Is Far from Being a Threat

The alarmist narrative about quantum computing overlooks the technical and practical challenges that still need to be overcome. Among them:

• Insufficient number of qubits: Current quantum computers have only a few hundred qubits, whereas successful attacks would require millions.
• High error rate: Quantum stability remains a barrier to reliable large-scale operations.
• High costs: Building and operating large-scale quantum computers requires massive investments, limiting their use to scientific or specific applications.

Moreover, even if quantum computers make significant advancements, Bitcoin is already adapting to ensure its infrastructure is prepared to respond.

---

Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Secure Future

Despite advancements in quantum computing, the reality is that Bitcoin is far from being threatened. Its security is ensured not only by its robust architecture but also by the community’s constant efforts to anticipate and mitigate challenges.

The implementation of BIP-360 and the pursuit of post-quantum algorithms demonstrate that Bitcoin is not only resilient but also proactive. By adopting practical measures, such as using modern wallets and migrating to quantum-resistant addresses, users can further protect themselves against potential threats.

Bitcoin’s future is not at risk—it is being carefully shaped to withstand any emerging technology, including quantum computing.

@ dbb19ae0:c3f22d5a

First make sure to add this relay wss://relay.momostr.pink in your Nostr setting and second follow this account

Soon after an account will be created on bluesky and will mirror your Nostr profile the address will be like this: bsky.app/profile/npub1mwce4c8qa2zn9zw9f372syrc9dsnqmyy3jkcmpqkzaze0slj94dqu6nmwy.momostr.pink.ap.brid.gy

And from there keep spreading the good word

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/825913

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Chef's notes

arbitray

• test
• of
• chefs notes

hedding 2

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 20
• 🍳 Cook time: 1 hour
• 🍽️ Servings: 5

Ingredients

• Test ingredient
• 2nd test ingredient

Directions

1. Bake
2. Cool

@ d3052ca3:d84a170e

It seems to me that the primary opposition to ecash from bitcoiners comes from the belief that lightning will enable self-custodial micropayments for the masses. Many lightning enthusiasts see ecash as competition that will eliminate this technological outcome (whether they admit it or not).

I understand the motivation for this line of reasoning but I don't see things this way at all. Ecash is a superset of lightning. Cashu literally doesn't have a spec for on-chain transactions (yet!). Everything cashu accomplishes is built on the back of lightning. Standing on the shoulders of giants.

I don't believe that ecash will take away market share from self-custodial lightning because lightning is not a good technology for self-custody. The high overhead costs of running your own node create a natural incentive for a semi-centralized hub and spoke network graph. It just makes economic sense for many users to share a lightning node. It doesn't make economic sense for individuals to bear this cost alone.

This stacker news post is the best writeup on this topic: https://stacker.news/items/379225

It comes from a builder who struggled with these issues for years and learned the shortcomings of the tech first hand. Notice they experimented with ecash as a solution to these problems before they burned out and pivoted to save the company.

Ecash is a superset of lightning. It extends the capability and reach of the lightning network. Without ecash, I don't believe we can achieve bitcoin mass adoption. You can't jam a square peg into a round hole.

We still have a need for self-custody of "small" amounts of bitcoin. I put small in quotes because the block size limit and the fee market it creates impose a fundamental constraint on the minimum practical size of a UTXO. This limit is pegged to the unit of bitcoin. As bitcoin increases in value the minimum size for an on-chain transaction will grow in value as well. You can send $10 worth of bitcoin on-chain today but will this be true in 10 years when the price is much higher? 100 years?

If the current exponential trends hold, we will soon price out the majority of humanity from owning a UTXO. This is bad. Like really bad. "Bitcoin is a failure" bad. This is the motivation for my posts about scaling on-chain usage to 10 billion people. I believe we will need to radically rearchitect bitcoin to achieve this goal.

Lightning is not up to the task. We should leverage lightning for what it's good at: gluing together different self-custodial bitcoin service providers. We should leverage ecash for what it's good at: peer-to-peer electronic cash micropayments. IN ADDITION we also need to start seriously looking at new ideas for scaling self custody to "small" amounts of bitcoin. I am very optimistic that we can solve this problem. There are a number of promising avenues to pursue but I think first we need to move the Overton window ~~beyond the idea of mass adoption of self-custodial lightning~~ regarding on-chain scaling.

Edit: I think the original Overton window statement was incorrect. If on-chain fees stay low then self-custodial lightning or something similar is a much better prospect.

Just my 2 sats...let me know what you think. Keep it civil or be muted.

@ 0463223a:3b14d673

Hmm so I heard that in order to improve my brain I should try writing… Ok groovy, I’ll give it a go. In all honesty I don’t know what to write, my brain is a jumble of noise and titbits of random knowledge. I likely know more about sound than the average person but as physics goes, I don’t have anything new or profound to add. Air moves and noises happen. Is there really any more to it? I could write some flowery bollocks about refraction, absorption coefficients and reverberation times, or I could write some out there, arty shit but I don’t think that adds any value to anyone.

A lot of folks online have very strong beliefs in how the world operates or should operate. Whilst their conviction is strong, there’s also is a large percentage of people who totally disagree with them and think the exact opposite is the answer. That’s quite shit isn’t it? Humans have been around for 100,000 years or so and haven’t worked it out. I wonder what makes the internet celeb so certain they’ve got it right when the next internet celeb completely disagrees? I do my best to avoid any of these cunts but despite running to the obscurest social media platforms they still turn up with their profound statements. Meh.

Ideologically I’m leaning toward anarchism but even that seems full of arguments and contradictions and ultimately I don’t think I can be arsed with identifying with any particular ideology. I tried reading some philosophy and struggled with it, although I deep fall into a lovely deep sleep. It’s fair to say I’m not the brightest button in the box. I have a wife, a couple of cats and lots of things that make nosies in my shed. That’s pretty cool right? Well it works for me.

So why write this? I clearly wrote in the first sentence that I’m trying to improve my brain, a brain that’s gone through a number to twists and turns, a lot brain altering substances. I own that, no one forced me to. Beside, George Clinton was still smoking crack aged 80, didn’t do him any harm…

I’m on the 5th paragraph. I don’t feel any smarter yet and each paragraph is getting shorter, having started from a low base. I guess I’m being too high time preference… Might be a while before I launch my Deep Thought podcasts where myself and a guest talk for 500 hours about the philosophy of money and 13 amp plug sockets.

I’ve tortured myself enough. I’m posting this on Nostr where it will never go away.. lol. If you got this far, I congratulate/commiserate you and wish you a wonderful day.

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

Scuttlebutt foi iniciado em maio de 2014 por Dominic Tarr ( dominictarr ) como uma rede social alternativa off-line, primeiro para convidados, que permite aos usuários obter controle total de seus dados e privacidade. Secure Scuttlebutt (ssb) foi lançado pouco depois, o que coloca a privacidade em primeiro plano com mais recursos de criptografia.

Se você está se perguntando de onde diabos veio o nome Scuttlebutt:

Este termo do século 19 para uma fofoca vem do Scuttlebutt náutico: “um barril de água mantido no convés, com um buraco para uma xícara”. A gíria náutica vai desde o hábito dos marinheiros de se reunir pelo boato até a fofoca, semelhante à fofoca do bebedouro.

Marinheiros se reunindo em torno da rixa. ( fonte )

Dominic descobriu o termo boato em um artigo de pesquisa que leu.

Em sistemas distribuídos, fofocar é um processo de retransmissão de mensagens ponto a ponto; as mensagens são disseminadas de forma análoga ao “boca a boca”.

Secure Scuttlebutt é um banco de dados de feeds imutáveis apenas para acréscimos, otimizado para replicação eficiente para protocolos ponto a ponto. Cada usuário tem um log imutável somente para acréscimos no qual eles podem gravar. Eles gravam no log assinando mensagens com sua chave privada. Pense em um feed de usuário como seu próprio diário de bordo, como um diário de bordo (ou diário do capitão para os fãs de Star Trek), onde eles são os únicos autorizados a escrever nele, mas têm a capacidade de permitir que outros amigos ou colegas leiam ao seu diário de bordo, se assim o desejarem.

Cada mensagem possui um número de sequência e a mensagem também deve fazer referência à mensagem anterior por seu ID. O ID é um hash da mensagem e da assinatura. A estrutura de dados é semelhante à de uma lista vinculada. É essencialmente um log somente de acréscimo de JSON assinado. Cada item adicionado a um log do usuário é chamado de mensagem.

Os logs do usuário são conhecidos como feed e um usuário pode seguir os feeds de outros usuários para receber suas atualizações. Cada usuário é responsável por armazenar seu próprio feed. Quando Alice assina o feed de Bob, Bob baixa o log de feed de Alice. Bob pode verificar se o registro do feed realmente pertence a Alice verificando as assinaturas. Bob pode verificar as assinaturas usando a chave pública de Alice.

Estrutura de alto nível de um feed

Pubs são servidores de retransmissão conhecidos como “super peers”. Pubs conectam usuários usuários e atualizações de fofocas a outros usuários conectados ao Pub. Um Pub é análogo a um pub da vida real, onde as pessoas vão para se encontrar e se socializar. Para ingressar em um Pub, o usuário deve ser convidado primeiro. Um usuário pode solicitar um código de convite de um Pub; o Pub simplesmente gerará um novo código de convite, mas alguns Pubs podem exigir verificação adicional na forma de verificação de e-mail ou, com alguns Pubs, você deve pedir um código em um fórum público ou chat. Pubs também podem mapear aliases de usuário, como e-mails ou nome de usuário, para IDs de chave pública para facilitar os pares de referência.

Depois que o Pub enviar o código de convite ao usuário, o usuário resgatará o código, o que significa que o Pub seguirá o usuário, o que permite que o usuário veja as mensagens postadas por outros membros do Pub, bem como as mensagens de retransmissão do Pub pelo usuário a outros membros do Pub.

Além de retransmitir mensagens entre pares, os Pubs também podem armazenar as mensagens. Se Alice estiver offline e Bob transmitir atualizações de feed, Alice perderá a atualização. Se Alice ficar online, mas Bob estiver offline, não haverá como ela buscar o feed de Bob. Mas com um Pub, Alice pode buscar o feed no Pub mesmo se Bob estiver off-line porque o Pub está armazenando as mensagens. Pubs são úteis porque assim que um colega fica online, ele pode sincronizar com o Pub para receber os feeds de seus amigos potencialmente offline.

Um usuário pode, opcionalmente, executar seu próprio servidor Pub e abri-lo ao público ou permitir que apenas seus amigos participem, se assim o desejarem. Eles também podem ingressar em um Pub público. Aqui está uma lista de Pubs públicos em que todos podem participar . Explicaremos como ingressar em um posteriormente neste guia. Uma coisa importante a observar é que o Secure Scuttlebutt em uma rede social somente para convidados significa que você deve ser “puxado” para entrar nos círculos sociais. Se você responder às mensagens, os destinatários não serão notificados, a menos que estejam seguindo você de volta. O objetivo do SSB é criar “ilhas” isoladas de redes pares, ao contrário de uma rede pública onde qualquer pessoa pode enviar mensagens a qualquer pessoa.

Perspectivas dos participantes

Scuttlebot

O software Pub é conhecido como servidor Scuttlebutt (servidor ssb ), mas também é conhecido como “Scuttlebot” e sbotna linha de comando. O servidor SSB adiciona comportamento de rede ao banco de dados Scuttlebutt (SSB). Estaremos usando o Scuttlebot ao longo deste tutorial.

Os logs do usuário são conhecidos como feed e um usuário pode seguir os feeds de outros usuários para receber suas atualizações. Cada usuário é responsável por armazenar seu próprio feed. Quando Alice assina o feed de Bob, Bob baixa o log de feed de Alice. Bob pode verificar se o registro do feed realmente pertence a Alice verificando as assinaturas. Bob pode verificar as assinaturas usando a chave pública de Alice.

Estrutura de alto nível de um feed

Pubs são servidores de retransmissão conhecidos como “super peers”. Pubs conectam usuários usuários e atualizações de fofocas a outros usuários conectados ao Pub. Um Pub é análogo a um pub da vida real, onde as pessoas vão para se encontrar e se socializar. Para ingressar em um Pub, o usuário deve ser convidado primeiro. Um usuário pode solicitar um código de convite de um Pub; o Pub simplesmente gerará um novo código de convite, mas alguns Pubs podem exigir verificação adicional na forma de verificação de e-mail ou, com alguns Pubs, você deve pedir um código em um fórum público ou chat. Pubs também podem mapear aliases de usuário, como e-mails ou nome de usuário, para IDs de chave pública para facilitar os pares de referência.

Depois que o Pub enviar o código de convite ao usuário, o usuário resgatará o código, o que significa que o Pub seguirá o usuário, o que permite que o usuário veja as mensagens postadas por outros membros do Pub, bem como as mensagens de retransmissão do Pub pelo usuário a outros membros do Pub.

Além de retransmitir mensagens entre pares, os Pubs também podem armazenar as mensagens. Se Alice estiver offline e Bob transmitir atualizações de feed, Alice perderá a atualização. Se Alice ficar online, mas Bob estiver offline, não haverá como ela buscar o feed de Bob. Mas com um Pub, Alice pode buscar o feed no Pub mesmo se Bob estiver off-line porque o Pub está armazenando as mensagens. Pubs são úteis porque assim que um colega fica online, ele pode sincronizar com o Pub para receber os feeds de seus amigos potencialmente offline.

Um usuário pode, opcionalmente, executar seu próprio servidor Pub e abri-lo ao público ou permitir que apenas seus amigos participem, se assim o desejarem. Eles também podem ingressar em um Pub público. Aqui está uma lista de Pubs públicos em que todos podem participar . Explicaremos como ingressar em um posteriormente neste guia. Uma coisa importante a observar é que o Secure Scuttlebutt em uma rede social somente para convidados significa que você deve ser “puxado” para entrar nos círculos sociais. Se você responder às mensagens, os destinatários não serão notificados, a menos que estejam seguindo você de volta. O objetivo do SSB é criar “ilhas” isoladas de redes pares, ao contrário de uma rede pública onde qualquer pessoa pode enviar mensagens a qualquer pessoa.

Perspectivas dos participantes

Pubs - Hubs

Pubs públicos

| Pub Name | Operator | Invite Code | | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | scuttle.us | @Ryan | scuttle.us:8008:@WqcuCOIpLtXFRw/9vOAQJti8avTZ9vxT9rKrPo8qG6o=.ed25519~/ZUi9Chpl0g1kuWSrmehq2EwMQeV0Pd+8xw8XhWuhLE= | | pub1.upsocial.com | @freedomrules | pub1.upsocial.com:8008:@gjlNF5Cyw3OKZxEoEpsVhT5Xv3HZutVfKBppmu42MkI=.ed25519~lMd6f4nnmBZEZSavAl4uahl+feajLUGqu8s2qdoTLi8= | | Monero Pub | @Denis | xmr-pub.net:8008:@5hTpvduvbDyMLN2IdzDKa7nx7PSem9co3RsOmZoyyCM=.ed25519~vQU+r2HUd6JxPENSinUWdfqrJLlOqXiCbzHoML9iVN4= | | FreeSocial | @Jarland | pub.freesocial.co:8008:@ofYKOy2p9wsaxV73GqgOyh6C6nRGFM5FyciQyxwBd6A=.ed25519~ye9Z808S3KPQsV0MWr1HL0/Sh8boSEwW+ZK+8x85u9w= | | ssb.vpn.net.br | @coffeverton | ssb.vpn.net.br:8008:@ze8nZPcf4sbdULvknEFOCbVZtdp7VRsB95nhNw6/2YQ=.ed25519~D0blTolH3YoTwSAkY5xhNw8jAOjgoNXL/+8ZClzr0io= | | gossip.noisebridge.info | Noisebridge Hackerspace @james.network | gossip.noisebridge.info:8008:@2NANnQVdsoqk0XPiJG2oMZqaEpTeoGrxOHJkLIqs7eY=.ed25519~JWTC6+rPYPW5b5zCion0gqjcJs35h6JKpUrQoAKWgJ4= |

Pubs privados

Você precisará entrar em contato com os proprietários desses bares para receber um convite.

| Pub Name | Operator | Contact | | --------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------- | | many.butt.nz | @dinosaur | mikey@enspiral.com | | one.butt.nz | @dinosaur | mikey@enspiral.com | | ssb.mikey.nz | @dinosaur | mikey@enspiral.com | | ssb.celehner.com | @cel | cel@celehner.com |

Pubs muito grandes

Aviso: embora tecnicamente funcione usar um convite para esses pubs, você provavelmente se divertirá se o fizer devido ao seu tamanho (muitas coisas para baixar, risco para bots / spammers / idiotas)

| Pub Name | Operator | Invite Code | | --------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | scuttlebutt.de | SolSoCoG | scuttlebutt.de:8008:@yeh/GKxlfhlYXSdgU7CRLxm58GC42za3tDuC4NJld/k=.ed25519~iyaCpZ0co863K9aF+b7j8BnnHfwY65dGeX6Dh2nXs3c= | | Lohn's Pub | @lohn | p.lohn.in:8018:@LohnKVll9HdLI3AndEc4zwGtfdF/J7xC7PW9B/JpI4U=.ed25519~z3m4ttJdI4InHkCtchxTu26kKqOfKk4woBb1TtPeA/s= | | Scuttle Space | @guil-dot | Visit scuttle.space | | SSB PeerNet US-East | timjrobinson | us-east.ssbpeer.net:8008:@sTO03jpVivj65BEAJMhlwtHXsWdLd9fLwyKAT1qAkc0=.ed25519~sXFc5taUA7dpGTJITZVDCRy2A9jmkVttsr107+ufInU= | | Hermies | s | net:hermies.club:8008~shs:uMYDVPuEKftL4SzpRGVyQxLdyPkOiX7njit7+qT/7IQ=:SSB+Room+PSK3TLYC2T86EHQCUHBUHASCASE18JBV24= |

GUI - Interface Gráfica do Utilizador(Usuário)

Patchwork - Uma GUI SSB (Descontinuado)

Patchwork é o aplicativo de mensagens e compartilhamento descentralizado construído em cima do SSB . O protocolo scuttlebutt em si não mantém um conjunto de feeds nos quais um usuário está interessado, então um cliente é necessário para manter uma lista de feeds de pares em que seu respectivo usuário está interessado e seguindo.

Fonte: scuttlebutt.nz

Quando você instala e executa o Patchwork, você só pode ver e se comunicar com seus pares em sua rede local. Para acessar fora de sua LAN, você precisa se conectar a um Pub. Um pub é apenas para convidados e eles retransmitem mensagens entre você e seus pares fora de sua LAN e entre outros Pubs.

Lembre-se de que você precisa seguir alguém para receber mensagens dessa pessoa. Isso reduz o envio de mensagens de spam para os usuários. Os usuários só veem as respostas das pessoas que seguem. Os dados são sincronizados no disco para funcionar offline, mas podem ser sincronizados diretamente com os pares na sua LAN por wi-fi ou bluetooth.

Patchbay - Uma GUI Alternativa

Patchbay é um cliente de fofoca projetado para ser fácil de modificar e estender. Ele usa o mesmo banco de dados que Patchwork e Patchfoo , então você pode facilmente dar uma volta com sua identidade existente.

Planetary - GUI para IOS

Planetary é um app com pubs pré-carregados para facilitar integração.

Manyverse - GUI para Android

Manyverse é um aplicativo de rede social com recursos que você esperaria: posts, curtidas, perfis, mensagens privadas, etc. Mas não está sendo executado na nuvem de propriedade de uma empresa, em vez disso, as postagens de seus amigos e todos os seus dados sociais vivem inteiramente em seu telefone .

Fontes

• https://scuttlebot.io/

• https://decentralized-id.com/decentralized-web/scuttlebot/#plugins

• https://medium.com/@miguelmota/getting-started-with-secure-scuttlebut-e6b7d4c5ecfd

• Secure Scuttlebutt : um protocolo de banco de dados global.

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Um dos padrões mais bem estabelecidos ao medir a opinião pública é que cada geração tende a seguir um caminho semelhante em termos de política e ideologia geral. Seus membros compartilham das mesmas experiências formativas, atingem os marcos importantes da vida ao mesmo tempo e convivem nos mesmos espaços. Então, como devemos entender os relatórios que mostram que a Geração Z é hiperprogressista em certos assuntos, mas surpreendentemente conservadora em outros?

A resposta, nas palavras de Alice Evans, pesquisadora visitante na Universidade de Stanford e uma das principais estudiosas do tema, é que os jovens de hoje estão passando por um grande divergência de gênero, com as jovens mulheres do primeiro grupo e os jovens homens do segundo. A Geração Z representa duas gerações, e não apenas uma.

Em países de todos os continentes, surgiu um distanciamento ideológico entre jovens homens e mulheres. Milhões de pessoas que compartilham das mesmas cidades, locais de trabalho, salas de aula e até casas, não veem mais as coisas da mesma maneira.

Nos Estados Unidos, os dados da Gallup mostram que, após décadas em que os sexos estavam distribuídos de forma relativamente equilibrada entre visões políticas liberais e conservadoras, as mulheres entre 18 e 30 anos são agora 30 pontos percentuais mais liberais do que os homens dessa faixa etária. Essa diferença surgiu em apenas seis anos.

A Alemanha também apresenta um distanciamento de 30 pontos entre homens jovens conservadores e mulheres jovens progressistas, e no Reino Unido, a diferença é de 25 pontos. Na Polônia, no ano passado, quase metade dos homens entre 18 e 21 anos apoiou o partido de extrema direita Confederation, em contraste com apenas um sexto das jovens mulheres dessa mesma idade.

Fora do Ocidente, há divisões ainda mais acentuadas. Na Coreia do Sul, há um enorme abismo entre homens e mulheres jovens, e a situação é semelhante na China. Na África, a Tunísia apresenta o mesmo padrão. Vale notar que em todos os países essa divisão drástica ocorre principalmente entre a geração mais jovem, sendo muito menos pronunciada entre homens e mulheres na faixa dos 30 anos ou mais velhos.

O movimento # MeToo foi o principal estopim, trazendo à tona valores feministas intensos entre jovens mulheres que se sentiram empoderadas para denunciar injustiças de longa data. Esse estopim encontrou especialmente terreno fértil na Coreia do Sul, onde a desigualdade de gênero é bastante visível e a misoginia explícita é comum. (palavras da Financial Times, eu só traduzi)

Na eleição presidencial da Coreia do Sul em 2022, enquanto homens e mulheres mais velhos votaram de forma unificada, os jovens homens apoiaram fortemente o partido de direita People Power, enquanto as jovens mulheres apoiaram o partido liberal Democratic em números quase iguais e opostos.

A situação na Coreia é extrema, mas serve como um alerta para outros países sobre o que pode acontecer quando jovens homens e mulheres se distanciam. A sociedade está dividida, a taxa de casamento despencou e a taxa de natalidade caiu drasticamente, chegando a 0,78 filhos por mulher em 2022, o menor número no mundo todo.

Sete anos após a explosão inicial do movimento # MeToo, a divergência de gênero em atitudes tornou-se autossustentável.

Dados das pesquisas mostram que em muitos países, as diferenças ideológicas vão além dessa questão específica. A divisão progressista-conservadora sobre assédio sexual parece ter causado ou pelo menos faz parte de um alinhamento mais amplo, em que jovens homens e mulheres estão se organizando em grupos conservadores e liberais em outros assuntos.

Nos EUA, Reino Unido e Alemanha, as jovens mulheres agora adotam posturas mais liberais sobre temas como imigração e justiça racial, enquanto grupos etários mais velhos permanecem equilibrados. A tendência na maioria dos países tem sido de mulheres se inclinando mais para a esquerda, enquanto os homens permanecem estáveis. No entanto, há sinais de que os jovens homens estão se movendo para a direita na Alemanha, tornando-se mais críticos em relação à imigração e se aproximando do partido de extrema direita AfD nos últimos anos.

Seria fácil dizer que tudo isso é apenas uma fase passageira, mas os abismos ideológicos apenas crescem, e os dados mostram que as experiências políticas formativas das pessoas são difíceis de mudar. Tudo isso é agravado pelo fato de que o aumento dos smartphones e das redes sociais faz com que os jovens homens e mulheres agora vivam em espaços separados e tenham culturas distintas.

As opiniões dos jovens frequentemente são ignoradas devido à baixa participação política, mas essa mudança pode deixar consequências duradouras, impactando muito mais do que apenas os resultados das eleições.

Retirado de: https://www.ft.com/content/29fd9b5c-2f35-41bf-9d4c-994db4e12998

@ 1ec45473:d38df139

Preston Pysh posted this event this morning:

Behind the scenes, the nostr event looks like this:

Event = { "id":"a6fa7e1a73ce70c6fb01584a0519fd29788e59d9980402584e7a0af92cf0474a", "pubkey":"85080d3bad70ccdcd7f74c29a44f55bb85cbcd3dd0cbb957da1d215bdb931204", "created_at":1724494504, "kind":1, "tags":[ [ "p", "6c237d8b3b120251c38c230c06d9e48f0d3017657c5b65c8c36112eb15c52aeb", "", "mention" ], [ "p", "77ec966fcd64f901152cad5dc7731c7c831fe22e02e3ae99ff14637e5a48ef9c", "", "mention" ], [ "p", "c1fc7771f5fa418fd3ac49221a18f19b42ccb7a663da8f04cbbf6c08c80d20b1", "", "mention" ], [ "p", "50d94fc2d8580c682b071a542f8b1e31a200b0508bab95a33bef0855df281d63", "", "mention" ], [ "p", "20d88bae0c38e6407279e6a83350a931e714f0135e013ea4a1b14f936b7fead5", "", "mention" ], [ "p", "273e7880d38d39a7fb238efcf8957a1b5b27e819127a8483e975416a0a90f8d2", "", "mention" ], [ "t", "BH2024" ] ], "content":"Awesome Freedom Panel with...", "sig":"2b64e461cd9f5a7aa8abbcbcfd953536f10a334b631a352cd4124e8e187c71aad08be9aefb6a68e5c060e676d06b61c553e821286ea42489f9e7e7107a1bf79a" }

In nostr, all events have this form, so once you become familiar with the nostr event structure, things become pretty easy.

Look at the "tags" key. There are six "p" tags (pubkey) and one "t" tag (hashtag).

The p tags are public keys of people that are mentioned in the note. The t tags are for hashtags in the note.

It is common when working with NOSTR that you have to extract out certain tags. Here are some examples of how to do that with what are called JavaScript Array Methods:

Find the first "p" tag element:

``` Event.tags.find(item => item[0] === 'p')

[ 'p', '6c237d8b3b120251c38c230c06d9e48f0d3017657c5b65c8c36112eb15c52aeb', '', 'mention' ]

```

Same, but just return the pubkey":

``` Event.tags.find(item => item[0] === 'p')[1]

'6c237d8b3b120251c38c230c06d9e48f0d3017657c5b65c8c36112eb15c52aeb'

```

Filter the array so I only get "p" tags:

``` Event.tags.filter(item => item[0] === 'p')

[ [ 'p', '6c237d8b3b120251c38c230c06d9e48f0d3017657c5b65c8c36112eb15c52aeb', '', 'mention' ], [ 'p', '77ec966fcd64f901152cad5dc7731c7c831fe22e02e3ae99ff14637e5a48ef9c', '', 'mention' ], [ 'p', 'c1fc7771f5fa418fd3ac49221a18f19b42ccb7a663da8f04cbbf6c08c80d20b1', '', 'mention' ], [ 'p', '50d94fc2d8580c682b071a542f8b1e31a200b0508bab95a33bef0855df281d63', '', 'mention' ], [ 'p', '20d88bae0c38e6407279e6a83350a931e714f0135e013ea4a1b14f936b7fead5', '', 'mention' ], [ 'p', '273e7880d38d39a7fb238efcf8957a1b5b27e819127a8483e975416a0a90f8d2', '', 'mention' ] ]

```

Return an array with only the pubkeys in the "p" tags:

``` Event.tags.filter(item => item[0] === 'p').map(item => item[1])

[ '6c237d8b3b120251c38c230c06d9e48f0d3017657c5b65c8c36112eb15c52aeb', '77ec966fcd64f901152cad5dc7731c7c831fe22e02e3ae99ff14637e5a48ef9c', 'c1fc7771f5fa418fd3ac49221a18f19b42ccb7a663da8f04cbbf6c08c80d20b1', '50d94fc2d8580c682b071a542f8b1e31a200b0508bab95a33bef0855df281d63', '20d88bae0c38e6407279e6a83350a931e714f0135e013ea4a1b14f936b7fead5', '273e7880d38d39a7fb238efcf8957a1b5b27e819127a8483e975416a0a90f8d2' ]

```

@ 0b14a03f:3f0257c2

Change doesn’t come from something external. The change comes from within. But people are so disconnected from themselves that they keep trying and trying with tools to connect without realizing that if there is no connection within, there won’t be a healthy and long-term connection outside.

Bitcoin has no name or last name because it’s not important who created it. What’s important is what it was made for. That’s written on its roots, in its essence. And that essence won’t be discovered if we keep trying to set it up in old avatars, systems, protocols, and connections.

Bitcoin is not a tool to get rich and be free. It’s a means to disconnect from a broken environment and find a safe place to pause, to feel, to see what’s really inside of ourselves, and to analyze if the world around us is not a consequence but a reflection of our internal disconnection.

Freedom will be a consequence, not a cause of a better future. We can be the artisans of that future by connecting with ourselves from within, as individuals first, and as a community after.

Community as in Common Identity. We need to find our identity, then share it, nurture it with others, and by doing so, be able to create a better world.

Don’t fall into old traps. After all, this is a journey from the mind to the heart.

Happy arriving!

Hug✨

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

Hackathon 概览

BTCfi 夏季黑客松 是于2024年夏季由CoreDAO组织，为期12周的黑客松活动。本次活动旨在推动比特币经济中的创新，吸引了来自Web3和BTCfi社区的开发者参与。共有291位开发者参与，提交了74个去中心化应用项目（BUIDLs）到Core平台上。此举旨在加强Core在BTC领域的作用。

Hackathon于2024年6月6日开始，包含开幕式、申请期以及于2024年8月19日的demo日。获奖者于2024年8月26日公布。NLX、Halborn、TokenSoft、Verichains和Request Finance等赞助商给予了支持。

参与者专注于开发将Core链技术融入其解决方案的独特应用。此次活动有效扩展了Core生态系统，增强了开发人员的参与度。所提交项目的多样性和范围突显了活动的成功实施及其对未来区块链技术进步的潜在影响。

Hackathon 获奖项目

• 1st Place：Rune Bridge: 该系统实现了比特币和Core区块链之间无需权限的集成。它利用EVM兼容性和混合共识模型来实现可扩展性，由智能合约、链外中继器和一个工厂ERC20合约组成，以高效管理代币。
• 2nd Place：OnchainVampireSurvivors: 这是一款Web3时间生存游戏，具有基于区块链的链上排行榜和彩票功能。项目使用ThirdWeb进行钱包访问，注重gas效率，并使用Cocos和Hardhat开发。未来增强计划包括AI资产和在Core主网上的部署。
• 3rd Place：b14g Network - Enhancing Decentralization and Security on Core Chain with b14g: 本项目旨在通过实施观察者节点和合并质押来增强Core Chain的安全性，促进监控的去中心化并解决承诺问题。它旨在将BTC与DeFi集成，提升CORE代币的实用性并确保网络的完整性。

欲了解所有提交项目的综合概述，请访问BTCFi Summer Hackathon 2024页面。

关于组织者

CoreDAO

Core DAO管理着Core Chain，这是一条以安全性和可扩展性为重点的去中心化区块链网络。通过将比特币的工作量证明与Satoshi Plus共识系统（委托工作量证明和委托权益证明的组合）相结合，Core DAO旨在增强去中心化和安全性。该平台提供以太坊虚拟机兼容性，使比特币矿工可以参与，同时比特币持有者可以在不放弃托管的情况下进行质押。Core Chain支持高交易吞吐量，由社区管理，并提供与其他区块链的互操作性，使用Solidity进行高效智能合约开发。该组织的使命是推动由比特币保护的去中心化应用程序开发。

@ df476244:6804e458

Markdown: Syntax

• Overview
  • Philosophy
  • Inline HTML
  • Automatic Escaping for Special Characters
• Block Elements
  • Paragraphs and Line Breaks
  • Headers
  • Blockquotes
  • Lists
  • Code Blocks
  • Horizontal Rules
• Span Elements
  • Links
  • Emphasis
  • Code
  • Images
• Miscellaneous
  • Backslash Escapes
  • Automatic Links

Note: This document is itself written using Markdown; you can see the source for it by adding '.text' to the URL.

---

Overview

Philosophy

Markdown is intended to be as easy-to-read and easy-to-write as is feasible.

Readability, however, is emphasized above all else. A Markdown-formatted document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like it's been marked up with tags or formatting instructions. While Markdown's syntax has been influenced by several existing text-to-HTML filters -- including Setext, atx, Textile, reStructuredText, Grutatext, and EtText -- the single biggest source of inspiration for Markdown's syntax is the format of plain text email.

Block Elements

Paragraphs and Line Breaks

A paragraph is simply one or more consecutive lines of text, separated by one or more blank lines. (A blank line is any line that looks like a blank line -- a line containing nothing but spaces or tabs is considered blank.) Normal paragraphs should not be indented with spaces or tabs.

The implication of the "one or more consecutive lines of text" rule is that Markdown supports "hard-wrapped" text paragraphs. This differs significantly from most other text-to-HTML formatters (including Movable Type's "Convert Line Breaks" option) which translate every line break character in a paragraph into a <br /> tag.

When you do want to insert a <br /> break tag using Markdown, you end a line with two or more spaces, then type return.

Headers

Markdown supports two styles of headers, [Setext] [1] and [atx] [2].

Optionally, you may "close" atx-style headers. This is purely cosmetic -- you can use this if you think it looks better. The closing hashes don't even need to match the number of hashes used to open the header. (The number of opening hashes determines the header level.)

Blockquotes

Markdown uses email-style > characters for blockquoting. If you're familiar with quoting passages of text in an email message, then you know how to create a blockquote in Markdown. It looks best if you hard wrap the text and put a > before every line:

This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.

Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

Markdown allows you to be lazy and only put the > before the first line of a hard-wrapped paragraph:

This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.

Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

Blockquotes can be nested (i.e. a blockquote-in-a-blockquote) by adding additional levels of >:

This is the first level of quoting.

This is nested blockquote.

Back to the first level.

Blockquotes can contain other Markdown elements, including headers, lists, and code blocks:

This is a header.

1. This is the first list item.
2. This is the second list item.

Here's some example code:

return shell_exec("echo $input | $markdown_script");

Any decent text editor should make email-style quoting easy. For example, with BBEdit, you can make a selection and choose Increase Quote Level from the Text menu.

Lists

Markdown supports ordered (numbered) and unordered (bulleted) lists.

Unordered lists use asterisks, pluses, and hyphens -- interchangably -- as list markers:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

is equivalent to:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

and:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

Ordered lists use numbers followed by periods:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

It's important to note that the actual numbers you use to mark the list have no effect on the HTML output Markdown produces. The HTML Markdown produces from the above list is:

If you instead wrote the list in Markdown like this:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

or even:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

you'd get the exact same HTML output. The point is, if you want to, you can use ordinal numbers in your ordered Markdown lists, so that the numbers in your source match the numbers in your published HTML. But if you want to be lazy, you don't have to.

To make lists look nice, you can wrap items with hanging indents:

• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.
• Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

But if you want to be lazy, you don't have to:

• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.
• Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

List items may consist of multiple paragraphs. Each subsequent paragraph in a list item must be indented by either 4 spaces or one tab:

1. This is a list item with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus.

   Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus. Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit.

2. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

It looks nice if you indent every line of the subsequent paragraphs, but here again, Markdown will allow you to be lazy:

• This is a list item with two paragraphs.

  This is the second paragraph in the list item. You're only required to indent the first line. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.

• Another item in the same list.

To put a blockquote within a list item, the blockquote's > delimiters need to be indented:

• A list item with a blockquote:

  This is a blockquote inside a list item.

To put a code block within a list item, the code block needs to be indented twice -- 8 spaces or two tabs:

• A list item with a code block:

  <code goes here>
  

Code Blocks

Pre-formatted code blocks are used for writing about programming or markup source code. Rather than forming normal paragraphs, the lines of a code block are interpreted literally. Markdown wraps a code block in both <pre> and <code> tags.

To produce a code block in Markdown, simply indent every line of the block by at least 4 spaces or 1 tab.

This is a normal paragraph:

This is a code block.

Here is an example of AppleScript:

tell application "Foo"
    beep
end tell

A code block continues until it reaches a line that is not indented (or the end of the article).

Within a code block, ampersands (&) and angle brackets (< and >) are automatically converted into HTML entities. This makes it very easy to include example HTML source code using Markdown -- just paste it and indent it, and Markdown will handle the hassle of encoding the ampersands and angle brackets. For example, this:

<div class="footer">
    &copy; 2004 Foo Corporation
</div>

Regular Markdown syntax is not processed within code blocks. E.g., asterisks are just literal asterisks within a code block. This means it's also easy to use Markdown to write about Markdown's own syntax.

tell application "Foo" beep end tell

Span Elements

Links

Markdown supports two style of links: inline and reference.

In both styles, the link text is delimited by [square brackets].

To create an inline link, use a set of regular parentheses immediately after the link text's closing square bracket. Inside the parentheses, put the URL where you want the link to point, along with an optional title for the link, surrounded in quotes. For example:

This is an example inline link.

This link has no title attribute.

Emphasis

Markdown treats asterisks (*) and underscores (_) as indicators of emphasis. Text wrapped with one * or _ will be wrapped with an HTML <em> tag; double *'s or _'s will be wrapped with an HTML <strong> tag. E.g., this input:

single asterisks

single underscores

double asterisks

double underscores

Code

To indicate a span of code, wrap it with backtick quotes (`). Unlike a pre-formatted code block, a code span indicates code within a normal paragraph. For example:

Use the printf() function.

@ 6f3670d9:03f04036

Disclaimer: - This will void your warranty - There might be differences between the Bitaxe and the Lucky Miner that might not cause issues or damage immediately, but might manifest long-term - Proceed at your own risk

---

A Different Pickaxe

You live in a place where it's difficult to get a Bitaxe. You have access to AliExpress. You look around. You find something called the "Lucky Miner LV06". A Bitaxe clone that uses the same mining chip as the Bitaxe Ultra (BM1366 ASIC). You buy one.

You plug it in, you enter your wallet address and other settings, and it starts mining. It works! Great!

But it's running a customized firmware. It's not AxeOS. Maybe there's something shady in the stock firmware. It's not open-source, after all. Also, AxeOS looks amazing... And that automatic pool fail-over feature is handy.

You think to yourself: "Maybe I can use the Bitaxe firmware on this?". Guess what? You're right!

Flashing From Web UI

What usually works for me is to: - Download the Bitaxe firmware files (esp-miner.bin and www.bin) from GitHub (here). Version 2.4.1 seems to work well, as of this writing. - Then from the Lucky Miner web interface, upload the "Website" (www.bin) file. - Wait for a minute or two after it's done uploading. - Upload the "Firmware" (esp-miner.bin) file. - Wait another minute or two. - Unplug the power and plug it back in. - Set the "Core Voltage" and "Frequency" to the defaults. - Unplug the power and plug it back in again.

If you're lucky (no pun intended), you'll have a working Lucky Miner with AxeOS. Update the settings and mine away!

However, often times I've been unlucky, like what happened while I was writing this article, ironically. The miner malfunctions for no obvious reason. It keeps rebooting, or it's not mining (zero/low hashrate), or the web interface is inaccessible. You name it.

The miner has become a "brick". How do you "unbrick" it?

When you brick a Bitaxe, you can recover it by flashing (uploading) a "Factory Image". The Bitaxe has a USB port that makes this easy. Follow the guide and it should come back to life again. Unfortunately, the Lucky Miner LV06 doesn't have a USB port. It has a serial port, though. We'll have to get our hands a bit dirty.

Flashing Using the Serial Port

We need to connect the serial port of the miner to a computer and run a program to flash (upload) the firmware file on the miner. Any 3.3v UART serial port should be sufficient. Unfortunately, PCs don't usually come with a UART serial port these days, let alone a 3.3v one. The serial port common in old computers is an RS-232 port, which will most probably fry your miner if you try to connect it directly. Beware.

In my case, as a serial port for my PC, I'm using an Arduino Due I had lying around. We connect it to the PC through USB, and on the other side we connect a few wires to the miner, which gives the PC access to the miner.

WARNING: Make sure your serial port is 3.3v or you will probably kill the miner. Arduino Uno is 5v not 3.3v, for example, and cannot be used for this.

Wiring

First, we need to open the Lucky Miner. Use a small flat screwdriver to gently push the two plastic clips shown in the picture below. Gently pry the top cover away from the bottom cover on the clips side first, then remove the other side. Be careful not to break the display cable.

Once the cover is off, you can find the miner's serial port in the top right corner (J10), as shown in the next picture. We'll also need the reset button (EN).

There are three screws holding the PCB and the bottom cover together. If you're confident in your ability to push the small button on the underside of the PCB with the bottom cover on, then no need to remove these. The following picture shows what we need from that side.

And the next picture shows the pins and USB port we will use from the Arduino.

Now, we need to connect: - The USB port on the Arduino labelled "programming" to the PC - Pin 18 (TX1) on the Arduino to J10 through-hole pad 5 (blue dot) - Pin 19 (RX1) on the Arduino to J10 through-hole pad 3 (green dot) - Any GND pin on the Arduino to J10 through-hole pad 4 (yellow dot)

I didn't need to solder the wires to the pads. Keeping everything stable, perhaps by putting a weight on the wires or a bit of tape, was sufficient in all my attempts.

Setting up the Arduino

To use the Arduino as a serial port for our PC, we'll have to make it pass-through data back and forth between the USB port and UART1, where we connected the miner.

The following steps are all done on a PC running Debian Linux (Bookworm), in the spirit of freedom and open-source.

First, we start the Arduino IDE. If the package for the Arduino Due board is not already installed, you'll see a small prompt at the bottom. Click "Install this package".

Click the "Install" button.

Once the package is installed, click "Close".

Next, we select the Due board. Click the "Tools" menu, select "Board", select "Arduino ARM (32-bits) Boards" and click "Arduino Due (Programming Port)"

Next, we select the port. Click the "Tools" menu again, select "Port", and click the port where the Arduino is connected. In my case it was "/dev/ttyACM0".

Now we need to upload the following code to the Arduino board. The code is actually the "SerialPassthrough" example from the IDE, but with the serial speed changed to match the miner.

``` void setup() { Serial.begin(115200); Serial1.begin(115200); }

void loop() { if (Serial.available()) { // If anything comes in Serial (USB), Serial1.write(Serial.read()); // read it and send it out Serial1 }

if (Serial1.available()) { // If anything comes in Serial1 Serial.write(Serial1.read()); // read it and send it out Serial (USB) } } ```

Copy/paste the code into the IDE and click upload. You'll see "Done uploading" at the bottom.

Next we'll test if we're receiving data from the miner. We start by opening the "Serial Monitor" from the "Tools" menu in the IDE. Then we change the baudrate to 115200.

Set the Arduino and the miner in a comfortable position, make sure the wires are held in place and got a good contact on both sides, and the power is plugged in.

Now we'll put the miner in "download" mode. Press and hold the button on the underside (K1), press and release the reset button (EN), then release the other button (K1).

You should see some text from the miner in the serial monitor window, like in the picture below.

Congratulations! We know we're able to receive data from the miner now. We're not sure transmit is working, but we'll find out when we try to flash.

Flashing Using the Serial Port, for Real

To flash the Lucky Miner we'll need a software tool named esptool and the factory image firmware file.

I usually use "esp-miner-factory-205-v2.1.8.bin" for the factory image (this one) as a base, and then flash the version I want from the Web UI, using the steps I mentioned earlier.

For esptool, the documentation (here) shows us how to install it. To make things a little easier on our Debian Linux system, we'll use pipx instead of pip. The instructions below are adapted for that.

First we make sure pipx is installed. Run this command in a terminal and follow the instructions:

sudo apt-get install pipx

Then we install esptool using pipx. Run the following in a terminal:

pipx install esptool

The output will be something like this:

user@pc:~$ pipx install esptool installed package esptool 4.8.1, installed using Python 3.11.2 These apps are now globally available - esp_rfc2217_server.py - espefuse.py - espsecure.py - esptool.py ⚠️ Note: '/home/user/.local/bin' is not on your PATH environment variable. These apps will not be globally accessible until your PATH is updated. Run `pipx ensurepath` to automatically add it, or manually modify your PATH in your shell's config file (i.e. ~/.bashrc). done! ✨ 🌟 ✨

We can see pipx telling us we won't be able to run our tool because the folder where it was installed is not in the PATH variable. To fix that, we can follow pipx instructions and run:

pipx ensurepath

And we'll see something like this:

``` user@pc:~$ pipx ensurepath Success! Added /home/user/.local/bin to the PATH environment variable.

Consider adding shell completions for pipx. Run 'pipx completions' for instructions.

You will need to open a new terminal or re-login for the PATH changes to take effect.

Otherwise pipx is ready to go! ✨ 🌟 ✨ ```

Now, close the terminal and re-open it so that esptool becomes available.

Finally, to actually flash the miner, put the miner in download mode, then in the following command change the port ("/dev/ttyACM0") to your serial port, as we've seen earlier, and the file path to where your firmware file is, and run it:

esptool.py -p /dev/ttyACM0 --baud 115200 write_flash --erase-all 0x0 ~/Downloads/esp-miner-factory-205-v2.1.8.bin

If everything went fine, the tool will take a few minutes to flash the firmware to the miner. You'll see something like this in the output:

``` user@pc:~$ esptool.py -p /dev/ttyACM0 --baud 115200 write_flash --erase-all 0x0 ~/Downloads/esp-miner-factory-205-v2.1.8.bin esptool.py v4.8.1 Serial port /dev/ttyACM0 Connecting..... Detecting chip type... ESP32-S3 Chip is ESP32-S3 (QFN56) (revision v0.2) Features: WiFi, BLE, Embedded PSRAM 8MB (AP_3v3) Crystal is 40MHz MAC: 3c:84:27:ba:be:01 Uploading stub... Running stub... Stub running... Configuring flash size... Erasing flash (this may take a while)... Chip erase completed successfully in 9.5s Compressed 15802368 bytes to 1320190... Wrote 15802368 bytes (1320190 compressed) at 0x00000000 in 152.1 seconds (effective 831.2 kbit/s)... Hash of data verified.

Leaving... Hard resetting via RTS pin... ```

And we're done! Hopefully the miner will be recovered now.

Hope this helps!

Stay humble,
dumb-package

A Warning About Beta Versions of AxeOS

For reasons unknown to me, while I was writing this article I wanted to try the testing version of AxeOS, which was v2.4.1b (beta). Flashing from Web UI went smooth, but the miner stopped mining. I flashed back to v2.1.8 using the serial port, a known good version for me, but it wouldn't mine, still.

Thankfully, v2.4.1 was released recently, and flashing it from the Web UI magically revived my miner. So, be warned.

Bonus: File Hashes

For convenience, these are the SHA256 hashes of the files I used in this article: ``` da24fceb246f3b8b4dd94e5143f17bd38e46e5285e807ebd51627cb08f665c0a ESP-Miner-v2.4.1/esp-miner.bin 16c5c671391f0e3e88a3e79ce33fad3b0ec232b8572fad5e1e0d1ad3251ab394 ESP-Miner-v2.4.1/www.bin

d5182a15b6fa21d7b9b31bff2026d30afed9d769781a48db914730a5751e20c6 esp-miner-factory-205-v2.1.8.bin ```

@ ed84ce10:cccf4c2a

Hackathon Summary

The BTCfi Summer Hackathon, organized by Core DAO in 2024, concluded after a 12-week period. The hackathon aimed to drive innovation in the Bitcoin economy, engaging developers from the Web3 and BTCfi communities. A total of 291 developers participated, submitting 74 decentralized application projects (BUIDLs) on the Core platform. This initiative sought to reinforce Core’s role within the BTC space.

The hackathon commenced on June 6, 2024, featuring key activities such as the opening ceremony, application period, and a demo day on August 19, 2024. Winners were revealed on August 26, 2024. The event was supported by sponsors, including NLX, Halborn, TokenSoft, Verichains, and Request Finance.

Participants focused on developing unique applications that incorporated Core Chain technologies into their solutions. The event effectively expanded the Core ecosystem, enhancing developer engagement. The diversity and range of submitted projects underscored the event's successful execution and potential impact on future blockchain technology advancements.

Hackathon Winners

1st Place

Rune Bridge: This system facilitates integration between the Bitcoin and Core blockchains without requiring permission. It leverages EVM compatibility and a hybrid consensus model for scalability, consisting of a smart contract, off-chain relayer, and a factory ERC20 contract to manage tokens efficiently.

2nd Place

OnchainVampireSurvivors: A Web3 time survival game featuring a blockchain-based on-chain leaderboard and lottery. The project uses ThirdWeb for wallet access, prioritizes gas efficiency, and is developed using Cocos and Hardhat. Future enhancements include AI assets and deployment on the Core mainnet.

3rd Place

b14g Network - Enhancing Decentralization and Security on Core Chain with b14g: This project aims to bolster Core Chain's security by implementing Observer Nodes and Merge Staking, promoting decentralization in monitoring and addressing commitment challenges. It seeks to integrate BTC with DeFi, enhancing CORE token utility and ensuring network integrity.

For a comprehensive overview of all submitted projects, visit the BTCFi Summer Hackathon 2024 page.

About the Organizer

Core DAO

Core DAO manages the Core Chain, a decentralized blockchain network with a focus on security and scalability. By integrating Bitcoin’s Proof of Work with the Satoshi Plus consensus system—a combination of Delegated Proof of Work and Delegated Proof of Stake—Core DAO aims to enhance decentralization and security. The platform offers Ethereum Virtual Machine compatibility, enabling Bitcoin miners to participate and Bitcoin holders to stake without relinquishing custody. Core Chain supports high transaction throughput, is community-governed, and provides interoperability with other blockchains, utilizing Solidity for efficient smart contract development. The organization's mission centers on promoting decentralized application development secured by Bitcoin.

@ 6f3670d9:03f04036

This is my first long-form post. The starting line.

There's nothing of value here. Just using this as a marker.

I hope to post a lot more. Documenting how I made something work would be very useful to me, and hopefully others, but I've been too lazy to do that. Wish me luck!

Stay humble,
dumb-package

@ 16d11430:61640947

The legacy of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s education policies in colonial India has left a profound and complex impact on generations of Indians who were groomed to serve as intermediaries between the British colonial authorities and the native population. Dubbed "Macaulay’s Little Englishmen," these individuals faced unique psychosocial challenges stemming from their dual identity—educated and acculturated in the ways of the British yet tied to their Indian heritage. Straddling these two worlds, they often became objects of suspicion and alienation, regarded as potential double agents in a deeply divided society. This article explores the psychosocial effects of such an upbringing, which left these individuals feeling unmoored, mistrusted, and culturally disoriented.

The Double Bind: Torn Between Two Worlds

The fundamental conflict for Macaulay's "Little Englishmen" lay in their hybrid identity. Educated to think, speak, and act like the British, they were expected to serve the colonial administration, often as clerks, teachers, or intermediaries. However, this acculturation came at a cost: alienation from their own cultural roots. Their mastery of the English language and exposure to Western philosophy, law, and governance set them apart from the masses, who viewed them as traitors to their native heritage.

At the same time, these individuals were never fully accepted by the British elite. Despite their fluency in English and adoption of British customs, they were often treated as inferior, excluded from the corridors of real power. This dual rejection—by their own people and their colonial masters—created a profound sense of isolation and a fractured sense of self.

The Suspicion of Betrayal

The psychosocial burden of living as a cultural and social hybrid was compounded by the pervasive suspicion they faced from both sides.

1. From the British: While Macaulay’s education system intended to create loyal intermediaries, the British often doubted the loyalty of these individuals. Were they truly assimilated into the colonial ideology, or were they secretly harboring nationalist sentiments? This doubt meant that, despite their qualifications, many were confined to subordinate roles, denied the trust and respect they sought from their colonial employers.

2. From their own people: Within Indian society, these individuals were often perceived as sellouts or traitors who had traded their cultural identity for material gain. They were seen as collaborators in the colonial machinery that oppressed their own people. This mistrust led to social ostracization and an enduring sense of guilt and shame, as they were caught between the expectations of their colonial education and the loyalty to their heritage.

Psychosocial Consequences

The experience of living under constant suspicion and alienation had deep psychological and social repercussions:

1. Identity Crisis: The duality of their upbringing created a fractured identity. They were neither fully British nor fully Indian, leading to feelings of dislocation and an inability to fully belong to either world. This liminal state often resulted in a lifelong struggle with self-perception and cultural loyalty.

2. Chronic Anxiety: The need to constantly navigate the expectations and suspicions of both the British and Indian communities induced chronic stress. They had to carefully monitor their behavior, speech, and actions to avoid appearing disloyal to either side. This vigilance contributed to anxiety, self-doubt, and a lack of authentic self-expression.

3. Social Isolation: Alienated from their own communities and never fully accepted by the British, many of these individuals experienced profound loneliness. They lacked meaningful social support, as their education and socialization had placed them in a unique and isolating position.

4. Internalized Inferiority: The colonial education system, designed to instill admiration for British culture and disdain for indigenous traditions, often led to internalized feelings of inferiority. Many came to view their own heritage as backward or uncivilized, perpetuating a cycle of cultural self-erasure.

5. Moral Conflict: Being agents of a colonial system that oppressed their own people created a moral dilemma. Many felt complicit in the exploitation and subjugation of their fellow Indians, leading to guilt and cognitive dissonance. This internal conflict was particularly pronounced during the rise of the Indian independence movement, when calls for loyalty to one’s nation clashed with their colonial upbringing.

The Broader Implications

The psychosocial effects of being “Macaulay’s Little Englishmen” extend beyond the individual level, influencing broader societal dynamics. The creation of a class of culturally alienated intermediaries contributed to the perpetuation of colonial hierarchies, even after independence. The mistrust they experienced on both sides foreshadowed the postcolonial identity crises faced by many nations grappling with the legacy of colonization.

Furthermore, the notion of being a "double agent" has parallels in modern postcolonial societies, where individuals educated in Western systems often face similar suspicions of disloyalty or cultural inauthenticity. The scars of Macaulay’s experiment in social engineering are still visible in the struggles of postcolonial nations to reconcile traditional identities with the legacies of colonial modernity.

Conclusion

The psychosocial toll of being "Macaulay’s Little Englishmen" highlights the deep and lasting consequences of cultural alienation and identity manipulation. These individuals lived as bridges between two worlds, yet they were mistrusted and misunderstood by both. Their experiences serve as a poignant reminder of the human cost of colonialism and the complex legacy of cultural hybridity in a divided world. The story of Macaulay's "Little Englishmen" is not just a tale of alienation—it is a testament to the resilience of those who navigated impossible contradictions, often at great personal cost.

@ 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.

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

ETHOS & PURPOSE🌐

SATS'N'FACTS emphasizes Creativity, Privacy, FOSS Advocacy，with a focus on Local Community, Decentralization, and Health Balance. It is dedicated to nurturing an environment where decentralization and open collaboration thrive, providing space for deep technical discussions, hands-on learning, and meaningful networking, all with the goal of strengthening the Bitcoin community in Asia.

They aspire to redefine boundaries and usher in a new era of design and development excellence that leaves an indelible mark on the bitcoin environment. A three-day event dedicated to fostering innovation, and freedom within the Bitcoin Developer Community in Asia.

LEADS🧑‍💼

Enthusiast developers and builders from around the globe, will attend this first installments of the SATS’N’FACTS. Including nostr:npub1nvfgglea9zlcs58tcqlc6j26rt50ngkgdk7699wfq4txrx37aqcsz4e7zd nostr:npub1cj6ndx5akfazux7f0vjl4fyx9k0ulf682p437fe03a9ndwqjm0tqj886t6 nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac nostr:npub1ejxswthae3nkljavznmv66p9ahp4wmj4adux525htmsrff4qym9sz2t3tv nostr:npub1gwa27rpgum8mr9d30msg8cv7kwj2lhav2nvmdwh3wqnsa5vnudxqlta2sz nostr:npub1zk6u7mxlflguqteghn8q7xtu47hyerruv6379c36l8lxzzr4x90q0gl6ef nostr:npub13rvvn5g23anm09kwnya8qvzqejxfajfa56rnn47ck5l96ke6cq4sdcd4e0 nostr:npub147whqsr5vsj86x0ays70r0hgreklre3ey97uvcmxhum65skst56s30selt nostr:npub190trvg63e6tyqlwlj6lccqpftx76lckj25c006vwx3dzvdl88yxs2nyqdx nostr:npub1hw6amg8p24ne08c9gdq8hhpqx0t0pwanpae9z25crn7m9uy7yarse465gr nostr:npub10xk2rsg9l9ksht66egss98z7mzhetf8d7q4476d9cm6vsfv3a00qld5tdf nostr:npub19x0h8jm3mnwzhv4tpq62zta05er0qlyge73m0pwsp7h666khkd9qev2ree and more.

AGENDA📝

The event is designed to be a “decentralized and collaborative” effort between all participants, with activities being put together with attendees’ feedback. So no agenda, but here some guidance to make sure this event will be joyful and constructive:

🗓️8ᵗʰғᴇʙ Doors Opening：

• [ ] Event Opening
• [ ] Welcome session and intros
• [ ] Presentations and open discussions
• [ ] Initial networking and collaborative sessions
• [ ] Hackathon begins

🗓️9ᵗʰғᴇʙ ：

• [ ] Hackathon continues
• [ ] Attendee-led sessions
• [ ] Recording room open for voluntarily podcasting and interviews
• [ ] Peer-to-peer learning and networking

🗓️10ᵗʰғᴇʙ Closing UP：

• [ ] Hackathon wrap-up
• [ ] Pitching contest and project presentations
• [ ] Networking
• [ ] Closing remarks and final session

MERCH🛍️

Their event merch is not just cool—it’s a must-have! T-shirts 👕, bags 🎒, stickers 🖼️, caps 🧢...Get yours and carry the event vibe wherever you go!

Other Fun Activities🎡

In addition to the exciting conference, they've prepared a variety of enriching experiences for you—live art and craft activities🎨, art exhibitions🖼️, creative workshops✨, and Thai massage 💆……, and more.

How to join the Event🎡

If you're in Asia this February, don't miss out—join them in the vibrant city of Chiang Mai, Thailand 🇹🇭 for an unforgettable experience!

📅 Time：8—10th February 2025 📍Location：12/8 ถ.วัวลาย ซอย 3 ตำบลหายยา, เมืองเชียงใหม่ 50100 🇹🇭ไทย 💺Book your seat： https://formstr.app/#/fill/b3b9bd115fe936848a5e03134fefff945287285d51b1dee4731fef6a1070c597 🎤Submit an idea： https://formstr.app/#/forms/cf02333ea3c0d0c21080df599373e289fa343a55e63a1abdc7f633d1594078ff 🎫Buy your ticket: https://satsnfacts.btc.pub/p/ticket/

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Menschen tun alles, egal wie absurd, \ um ihrer eigenen Seele nicht zu begegnen. \ Carl Gustav Jung

«Extremer Reichtum ist eine Gefahr für die Demokratie», sagen über die Hälfte der knapp 3000 befragten Millionäre aus G20-Staaten laut einer Umfrage der «Patriotic Millionaires». Ferner stellte dieser Zusammenschluss wohlhabender US-Amerikaner fest, dass 63 Prozent jener Millionäre den Einfluss von Superreichen auf US-Präsident Trump als Bedrohung für die globale Stabilität ansehen.

Diese Besorgnis haben 370 Millionäre und Milliardäre am Dienstag auch den in Davos beim WEF konzentrierten Privilegierten aus aller Welt übermittelt. In einem offenen Brief forderten sie die «gewählten Führer» auf, die Superreichen – also sie selbst – zu besteuern, um «die zersetzenden Auswirkungen des extremen Reichtums auf unsere Demokratien und die Gesellschaft zu bekämpfen». Zum Beispiel kontrolliere eine handvoll extrem reicher Menschen die Medien, beeinflusse die Rechtssysteme in unzulässiger Weise und verwandele Recht in Unrecht.

Schon 2019 beanstandete der bekannte Historiker und Schriftsteller Ruthger Bregman an einer WEF-Podiumsdiskussion die Steuervermeidung der Superreichen. Die elitäre Veranstaltung bezeichnete er als «Feuerwehr-Konferenz, bei der man nicht über Löschwasser sprechen darf.» Daraufhin erhielt Bregman keine Einladungen nach Davos mehr. Auf seine Aussagen machte der Schweizer Aktivist Alec Gagneux aufmerksam, der sich seit Jahrzehnten kritisch mit dem WEF befasst. Ihm wurde kürzlich der Zutritt zu einem dreiteiligen Kurs über das WEF an der Volkshochschule Region Brugg verwehrt.

Nun ist die Erkenntnis, dass mit Geld politischer Einfluss einhergeht, alles andere als neu. Und extremer Reichtum macht die Sache nicht wirklich besser. Trotzdem hat man über Initiativen wie Patriotic Millionaires oder Taxmenow bisher eher selten etwas gehört, obwohl es sie schon lange gibt. Auch scheint es kein Problem, wenn ein Herr Gates fast im Alleingang versucht, globale Gesundheits-, Klima-, Ernährungs- oder Bevölkerungspolitik zu betreiben – im Gegenteil. Im Jahr, als der Milliardär Donald Trump zum zweiten Mal ins Weiße Haus einzieht, ist das Echo in den Gesinnungsmedien dagegen enorm – und uniform, wer hätte das gedacht.

Der neue US-Präsident hat jedoch «Davos geerdet», wie Achgut es nannte. In seiner kurzen Rede beim Weltwirtschaftsforum verteidigte er seine Politik und stellte klar, er habe schlicht eine «Revolution des gesunden Menschenverstands» begonnen. Mit deutlichen Worten sprach er unter anderem von ersten Maßnahmen gegen den «Green New Scam», und von einem «Erlass, der jegliche staatliche Zensur beendet»:

«Unsere Regierung wird die Äußerungen unserer eigenen Bürger nicht mehr als Fehlinformation oder Desinformation bezeichnen, was die Lieblingswörter von Zensoren und derer sind, die den freien Austausch von Ideen und, offen gesagt, den Fortschritt verhindern wollen.»

Wie der «Trumpismus» letztlich einzuordnen ist, muss jeder für sich selbst entscheiden. Skepsis ist definitiv angebracht, denn «einer von uns» sind weder der Präsident noch seine auserwählten Teammitglieder. Ob sie irgendeinen Sumpf trockenlegen oder Staatsverbrechen aufdecken werden oder was aus WHO- und Klimaverträgen wird, bleibt abzuwarten.

Das WHO-Dekret fordert jedenfalls die Übertragung der Gelder auf «glaubwürdige Partner», die die Aktivitäten übernehmen könnten. Zufällig scheint mit «Impfguru» Bill Gates ein weiterer Harris-Unterstützer kürzlich das Lager gewechselt zu haben: Nach einem gemeinsamen Abendessen zeigte er sich «beeindruckt» von Trumps Interesse an der globalen Gesundheit.

Mit dem Projekt «Stargate» sind weitere dunkle Wolken am Erwartungshorizont der Fangemeinde aufgezogen. Trump hat dieses Joint Venture zwischen den Konzernen OpenAI, Oracle, und SoftBank als das «größte KI-Infrastrukturprojekt der Geschichte» angekündigt. Der Stein des Anstoßes: Oracle-CEO Larry Ellison, der auch Fan von KI-gestützter Echtzeit-Überwachung ist, sieht einen weiteren potenziellen Einsatz der künstlichen Intelligenz. Sie könne dazu dienen, Krebserkrankungen zu erkennen und individuelle mRNA-«Impfstoffe» zur Behandlung innerhalb von 48 Stunden zu entwickeln.

Warum bitte sollten sich diese superreichen «Eliten» ins eigene Fleisch schneiden und direkt entgegen ihren eigenen Interessen handeln? Weil sie Menschenfreunde, sogenannte Philanthropen sind? Oder vielleicht, weil sie ein schlechtes Gewissen haben und ihre Schuld kompensieren müssen? Deswegen jedenfalls brauchen «Linke» laut Robert Willacker, einem deutschen Politikberater mit brasilianischen Wurzeln, rechte Parteien – ein ebenso überraschender wie humorvoller Erklärungsansatz.

Wenn eine Krähe der anderen kein Auge aushackt, dann tut sie das sich selbst noch weniger an. Dass Millionäre ernsthaft ihre eigene Besteuerung fordern oder Machteliten ihren eigenen Einfluss zugunsten anderer einschränken würden, halte ich für sehr unwahrscheinlich. So etwas glaube ich erst, wenn zum Beispiel die Rüstungsindustrie sich um Friedensverhandlungen bemüht, die Pharmalobby sich gegen institutionalisierte Korruption einsetzt, Zentralbanken ihre CBDC-Pläne für Bitcoin opfern oder der ÖRR die Abschaffung der Rundfunkgebühren fordert.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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".

@ 893a31fa:256af11f

Over the past 4 years, we have lived through and witnessed unprecedented suppression of ideas from public/private partnerships in the United States. This broke our nations' ability to think and agree on a narrative for our reality. Now, I know Trump is back in office, Ross is free and things are looking great for our future. But why do the ideas and policies of our politicians in power matter so much? And why, at the same time, do the ideas of the individuals subject to them matter so little? I believe it's because we have built our lives and our incomes on platforms rather than protocols. We didn't read the fine print. We opted not to own anything and tried to be happy anyway. We need an exit. Bitcoin gave us an exit for our value and time. Now we need to build more exits that we can rely on.

Video as a medium for learning and communicating information has surpassed every classroom you’ve ever stepped into. More people now learn critical skills, spark new ideas, create culture, and discover hidden talents by watching videos online than anywhere else. Yet, this same medium is stuck in the iron grip of corporate gatekeepers, who control what you see and hear through hidden algorithms.

Day after day, our viewing habits are corralled by these profit-driven, ad based platforms. They shape our conversations to keep us engaged with their content, so we scroll passed more ads. They push us toward self-censorship so they don't loos their advertisers, and they feed us the content they deem acceptable for our consumption while hiding or downplaying content they deem of lesser value. It’s not an outright dictatorship. It’s quieter and more insidious, with the algorithm’s interests taking priority over our own, even our hobbies and interests are manipulated by this effect.

---

The Path to Exit

Without an exit, platforms don’t have to earn your loyalty, they own it. People have tried to escape. Over the years, we’ve seen platforms like Odysee (LBRY), PeerTube, BitChute and others promise “decentralization,” only to falter because of complicated Ponzi token schemes, clumsy technical demands, or the same old centralization in a new package. LBRY uses similar technology, but is overly complex and doesn't allow for the exit from one client to another in a user-friendly way. And the Odysee company ends up seeding most of the content anyway. "Use our servers and not Google's!", they say in the end. No matter how high-minded the pitch, these efforts never truly replaced the major players, so we come crawling back. Because the exit wasn't real enough. The transition wasn't easy enough. The alternative wasn't strong enough.

Why do the giants hold power? Because you can’t just walk away when there’s nowhere else to go. This is The Exit Problem in action. Freedom requires an alternative, a place you can migrate to without sacrificing your content or your community. That’s the gap bitvid is aiming to fill. By building a genuinely competitive system, using only open standers, it gives us a real choice: stay in the walled garden or exit to a network that respects our sovereignty. The only thing is, it requires personal responsibility. As a Bitcoiner, this appeals to me. With great power comes great responsibility. And that's ok, because as you will see, if you can keep a computer with some hard drive space turned on and connected to the internet 24/7 then you can host your own video content. And your community of fans can help you host it too!

---

Digitally Free

To really understand bitvid, forget any idea of it being “just another video platform.” Think of it as a framework or blueprint. It’s designed to let you share and watch video without kneeling to corporate or government control. It's designed to keep your content available so long as 1 person in the world wants it to exist.

The main idea? User sovereignty. You, not Big Tech, hold all the control. bitvid relies on a marriage between two distributed technologies, Nostr and WebTorrent. Nostr supports open, resilient note-sharing (which extends to things identity, and subscription management), while WebTorrent provides the engine for the peer-to-peer video file distribution. Put them together, and you get a system that bypasses central servers and choke points of control. Instead, viewers connect to each other directly, using magnet links for streaming directly into their browsers window.

This system’s open design encourages multiple clients to eventually be created and different approaches to flourish. Eventually, you can choose the one that best aligns with your values and preferences. This competition keeps everyone honest, making it impossible for any single entity to seize control.

I have a temporary whitelist and blacklist built into my version of the client, but you can fork the code and remove that whitelist or blacklist and host on your own domain if you want. or even post content from a static version on your desktop. This system is designed to be modified, improved and forked into as many clients as we need to explore all the ways we want to search and filter the content we post. It's just like Nostr in that way.

---

bitvid’s Core Ideas

Right now you see a basic and buggy proof-of-concept client showing how everything could eventually fit together. But that’s just step one. I hope and believe that others will quickly follow, either contributing to my initial design or creating a new client, customizing the features and interface for different audiences and use cases.

Exit as a Feature: Your content and online persona aren’t locked into any one client. If you eventually find a particular client goes off the rails in a way you don't like, you can take your subscriptions and block lists along with your identity elsewhere, with minimal hassle. Nostr allowed users to move text notes to different relays at will. Now, bitvid extends that capability to video. If a client blocks your content, host your own version, or shift to a new client altogether. Likewise, if a client does not block enough of the content you don't want to see, then you can do the same. Nobody can yank your channel offline from a distant control room or force you to stay and watch the feeds you dislike.

The Living System: There’s no single server that can crash and kill bitvid or its content. So long as one person in the world is seeding a video, and the Nostr note that contains the magnet link is accessible on some relay, then it will live on. If a client decides to censor it, another can flip the switch back. It’s a swarm that endures, so long as WebTorrent peers keep it alive.

Decentralized Streaming Infrastructure: By using WebTorrent, we turn viewers into seeders also. When you watch a video, you help distribute it. This crowdsourced approach makes the entire network sturdier and harder to silence. And it should function even better as more users and content come online.

---

User Sovereignty

Peer-to-peer technology comes with tradeoffs. Yes, this requires personal responsibility, and yes, it may be slower than YouTube. But that’s the price of freedom, and for those who value sovereignty, it’s a price worth paying. Because those inconveniences pale in comparison to the freedom you gain when nobody can arbitrarily cut you off because they dislike your message or wanted to tamp down your ideas. The reason this matters is that users become the infrastructure. Instead of expecting a hosting provider to store all videos, you and I take on that role ourselves. Videos stay accessible as long as a handful of us continue to seed them. The network’s future is in our hands, not behind a server farm in Silicon Valley.

With bitvid, we also open the door to parallel realities. Different communities can adapt the codebase to fit their needs, whether that means specialized niches, curated libraries, or completely uncensored environments. You decide which universe you want to inhabit, rather than letting one corporate platform and algorithm decide for you. Developers who share a vision of open content can build new tools, refine user experience, or implement creative incentives for people to seed, like Bitcoin zaps. Meanwhile, creators will need a little nudge to get onboard. That’s why bitvid needs to emphasize creator education, helping them to understand how to seed videos, manage magnet links, and fully embrace this new direct P2P approach.

---

Mind Meets Reality

The ability to discuss and share ideas without a corporate overlord quietly steering your every view or suppressing your voice and thought is an important next unlock for our culture in America. Now is the time to build this kind of system without fear or hesitation. Nostr's simplified design allows for fast experimentation and Bitcoin's Lightning Network and other tools like Cashu allows for various types of incentive structures to be created. Videos carry messages, and messages can change minds, cultures, and entire nations as we have seen. This is why controlling them has been so profitable in the past.

bitvid offers a peaceful revolution. You don’t need to file a lawsuit or beg a faceless megacorp for your right to speak. You can simply leave, and bring your videos with you. This freedom to exit is what truly unravels the power of centralization. The result? Independent communities that thrive on their own terms, unburdened by what has been... All it takes is a choice. Step off the corporate treadmill and connect to a network that puts you in the driver’s seat. It’s a quiet shift, but its implications are enormous. When enough people choose freedom, the old guard starts to fade. Who happens to sit in the Oval Office will matter less. And we as a nation can determine our own relationships with reality.

---

Help Me Build

So, where does this all go next? Are we standing on the brink of a major transformation in how we share and consume video? All I know right now is that bitvid is not anywhere near ready to achieve all these lofty goals, yet. bitvid is a simple idea. Just a proof of concept really. Showing everyone that this just might work. But it’s only going to be as strong as the community that adopts it and can improve it.

Want to shape the future? Jump in with me. Take a look at the code I have so far, help me fix bugs and add features! Propose fresh ideas for how videos should be shared and monetized with Zaps or Cashu. I'm just one inexperienced developer trying to make something cool. I'm actualy just a Graphic Designer. So I need your help. Let's take this idea to its logical extreme end and see if we can foster a new way to share video online. Spread the word, get in touch with me on Nostr if you want to help out or get on the whitelist and start seeding your own content.

By stepping into bitvid, you exercise The Path to Exit. You’re not just joining some new platform, you’re helping craft an ecosystem that thrives on competition and free choice, an ecosystem that can’t be dictated from above. Peer-to-peer torrent sharing isn’t some dusty relic of the 2000s. It’s the best hope for an engine of real independence. Now you can’t be shut down at the flip of a corporate switch.

So, build or watch it grow, either way, bitvid needs the participation of people who believe we deserve better than the status quo. If you’re fed up with censorship, stifling algorithms, and one-size-fits-all platforms, take the leap. Every seed, every new client built, and every viewer who opts in tightens the screws on centralized control of ideas and culture.

Together, we will reclaim our minds and our culture from the gates of centralized control.

bitvid.network

GitHub

Nostr

@ 6b57533f:eaa341f5

Page: cover

background: #000000 template: vertical

Welcome to My Story

This is an amazing story.

Page: page1

background-image: https://nostr.build/i/nostr.png template: vertical

First Page

Content goes here

@ 3c506452:fef9202b

Kia ora ano e te iwi whanui!

Often I pose the question to myself "How would I say this if I had no knowledge whatsoever of English?" That's basically what guides my sentence formation whenever I speak Maori.

Since the arrival of Tauiwi into our turangawaewae, our reo has shifted, largely due to intermingling with the English language, and an entire generation or two completing losing the reo.

Great efforts have been made to secure our language from total extinction, and the number of te reo speakers seems to be on the rise.

What I do notice though is that most of the time when I do hear te reo being spoken, it's cadence follows that of the English language.
Vowels are clipped, consonants are aspirated, and English thought patterns are disguised via the Maori language.
Regardless, I still appreciate and prefer the reo to be spoken rather than it not be spoken at all.
I once heard someone remark that

"Maori sounds like Hawaiian with a New Zealand accent. Hilarious!"

So, how do I personally tackle this and try make my own reo sound more Maori?

Here's how:

1. Read Nupepa Maori - When the written word came to us, we dove straight in. Nupepa Maori gives great insight into how the language was used using the new medium of pen and paper.

2. Listen to the older videos of Wakahuia Docos - Wakahuia has been running for a long time and I find listening to our old people of those times a good way to hear the differences between how the reo sounds today, and how it sounded a little while back.

3. Listen Radio Kahungunu archives - They have a really nice archive of a talkback radio show.

4. People to listen for - I personally try to find anything by Timoti Karetu, Quinton Hita, and Julian Wilcox as I really enjoy the sound of how they speak the reo.

5. Listen to Cook Island Maori, Gagana Tokelau and Hawaiian (Keao Nesmith, Niihau dialect, Kaalala, Kanahele Collection) - Listening to other polynesian languages gives a good general gist of the sound of polynesian languages. I try to emulate a similar sound whenever I speak te reo.

No reira, ko tena tena, I hope that 2025 will be a good year for Te Reo Maori!

Nga rauemi:
Nupepa Maori
Wakahuia
Radio Kahungunu
Quinton Hita
Julian Wilcox
Timoti Karetu
Kanahele Collection
Ka Alala
Gagana Tokelau
Kuki Learning

@ 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

@ 16d11430:61640947

For centuries, the global narrative has been dominated by Western powers, their economies, and their cultural hegemony. But beneath this veneer of dominance lies a reality that is becoming increasingly impossible to ignore: the East—spanning Asia, the Middle East, and beyond—is awakening, mobilizing human potential and economic resources on a scale that dwarfs anything seen in the West.

To grasp this transformation, one must break free from traditional Western-centric paradigms and understand the numbers, the sheer scale, and the unstoppable momentum of this shift.

---

Population: The Power of Numbers

The East’s greatest asset is its people. To put this into perspective:

• China: With a population of 1.4 billion, it has more than four times the people of the United States. Imagine the United States replicating its entire labor force four times over, and you begin to see the scale of China’s potential.

• India: By 2023, India officially surpassed China as the most populous nation. Its Gen Z population alone—over 375 million people—is larger than the entire U.S. population.

• Southeast Asia: The ASEAN region, comprising nations like Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand, boasts a combined population of over 680 million. Indonesia alone, with 280 million people, is the world’s fourth-most populous country.

In total, Asia accounts for 60% of the world’s population. The raw human potential here is akin to unlocking billions of minds, all innovating, producing, and consuming.

The East is like a beehive, with billions of individuals working in unison, each contributing to a collective force that is buzzing with energy and unstoppable growth. Meanwhile, the West, though still industrious, often resembles a lone artisan toiling in a workshop, unaware of the scale of production happening just beyond their horizon.

---

Economic Growth: The Compounding Engine

Western economies, long considered the gold standard, are now being eclipsed by the rapid growth of Eastern nations.

• China’s GDP: In 1980, China’s GDP was a mere $191 billion, less than 5% of the U.S. economy. By 2023, it surpassed $19 trillion, closing in on the U.S. ($25 trillion) as the largest economy. Analysts predict that by the 2030s, China will overtake the U.S. to claim the top spot.

• India’s Growth Rate: India, now the fifth-largest economy, has consistently achieved GDP growth rates of 6-8% annually over the past two decades. Its economy, currently valued at $3.7 trillion, is projected to become the world’s third-largest by 2030.

• ASEAN Economic Bloc: The combined GDP of ASEAN nations exceeds $3.6 trillion, making it the fifth-largest economic bloc globally. Its strategic position as a manufacturing hub and its youthful workforce are propelling it forward.

Compare these numbers to the 2-3% growth rates in the U.S. and Europe, and it becomes evident that the East isn’t just catching up; it’s compounding at a rate that will leave Western economies in the dust.

The economic growth of the East is like a tidal wave gathering strength far out at sea. At first, it’s almost imperceptible, but as it approaches the shore, its size and force become undeniable, reshaping everything in its path. By comparison, the West resembles a well-built dam holding back a steady river—resilient, but incapable of matching the raw power of the oncoming surge.

---

Infrastructure Development: Building Tomorrow

The East is constructing the foundations of its future at an unprecedented pace:

• High-Speed Rail: China’s high-speed rail network spans over 42,000 kilometers, more than the rest of the world combined. To put it in perspective, this is like building a rail line that circles the Earth’s equator—with some to spare—in just two decades.

• Smart Cities: India has embarked on its ambitious 100 Smart Cities Mission, modernizing urban infrastructure to support its growing population. Meanwhile, the ASEAN region is investing billions in digital infrastructure to create hyper-connected economies.

• Energy Transition: China leads the world in renewable energy investment, accounting for 45% of global renewable energy capacity additions in 2022. This is the equivalent of powering all of Europe’s renewable energy needs annually.

These infrastructure projects aren’t just impressive feats of engineering; they are the scaffolding of economies that are designed to scale.

The East’s infrastructure boom is like planting an immense forest. Each rail line, smart city, and renewable energy project is a tree—seemingly small on its own but, when viewed together, forming a vast and thriving ecosystem that reshapes the climate of global power.

---

Education and Innovation: The Engine of Progress

The East is also mobilizing its human capital through education and innovation.

• China graduates over 1.2 million engineers annually, dwarfing the 70,000 engineering graduates in the United States.

• India’s Tech Workforce: India’s IT sector employs 5 million professionals and contributes nearly 10% of the country’s GDP. Companies like Infosys and TCS aren’t just outsourcing hubs; they’re global innovation powerhouses.

• Patents and R&D: China filed 1.5 million patents in 2022, compared to the U.S.’s 620,000. This means that for every patent filed in the West, two or more are being filed in China.

Innovation ecosystems in places like Shenzhen and Bangalore are the modern equivalents of Silicon Valley, but on steroids—fueled by scale, government support, and an unrelenting hunger to lead.

The East’s educational and innovation push is like lighting a thousand candles in a dark room. Where the West may hold a single, steady flame, the East is illuminating every corner, creating a dazzling and unstoppable glow.

---

A Metaphor for the West: The Dam Bursting

For the average Westerner, understanding this shift requires a relatable metaphor. Imagine standing behind a dam holding back a massive reservoir. For decades, the dam (the West) controlled the flow, regulating what trickled out to the downstream (the East). But now, the reservoir has grown so vast and powerful that it can no longer be contained. The dam is cracking, and when it bursts, the torrent of economic and human potential will reshape the entire landscape.

Alternatively, think of it as a relay race. For centuries, the West held the baton and set the pace. But now, the baton has been passed to the East, whose runners—with their sheer numbers and untapped potential—are sprinting at a speed that leaves the previous team struggling to keep up.

---

Conclusion: The Multi-Polar Future

The West must wake up to this reality, not with fear or resentment, but with a willingness to adapt. The world is moving towards a multi-polar order, where power is distributed rather than concentrated. Cooperation, not confrontation, will define success in this new era.

As the East continues to mobilize its vast resources, the question is not whether it will surpass the West, but how the West will respond. Will it resist, clinging to outdated notions of supremacy, or will it embrace this shift and find its place in a rebalanced world?

One thing is certain: the scale of what’s happening in the East is not just big; it’s colossal. And it’s time for the world to take notice.

@ 6b57533f:eaa341f5

Page: cover

background: #000000 template: vertical

Welcome to My Story

This is an amazing story.

Page: page1

background-image: https://nostr.build/i/nostr.png template: vertical

First Page

Content goes here

@ faade9ee:1c6dfd69

test2c

@ a311301f:4663f8f2

Needed to change the /tmp part replacing it with a call to $ENV in Powershell %TEMP% is now $env:PATH

Here is the Windows compatible program:

```perl

!/usr/bin/perl

use strict; use warnings;

my $filename = '/tmp/1.txt';

my $temp_dir = $ENV{'TEMP'} // '/tmp'; print ("temp: ", $temp_dir, "\n"); my $filename = "$temp_dir/1.txt";

if (-e $filename) { open(my $fh, '<', $filename) or die "Cannot open '$filename': $!"; while (my $line = <$fh>) { if ($line =~ /\$/) { print $line; } } close($fh); } else { open(my $fh, '>', $filename) or die "Cannot create '$filename': $!"; print $fh "This is a sample line with a \$ character.\n"; close($fh); }

```

@ 08288690:77f58eba

Awesome Amapiano

@ 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.

@ faade9ee:1c6dfd69

This is a normal piece of text.z

This is a bold piece of text via button press.z

this is also bold, but via double-starsz

this is an italic via button press

this also but via one-star

look, it's an underline!

oh, a piece of code has appeared. Nice. Button press tho. seems like it's purple / missed styling it, will change that.

another code but via text

code block, kinda buggy (really buggy actually x3)

```this is another, but via text which is disabled for now as it's cause issues```

This is a top number thing²²²

a bottom number thing_5ss65435ghrt

• bullets!

• another!

  • a third!

• Number!

• another!

  1. a third!

• [x] check

• [x] box

this is a quote

"quote"

heading 1

heading 2

heading 3 via text

heading 4 via text

heading 5 via text

heading 6 via text

this is a link via text (button has an annoyance bug)

---

video below

::youtube{#aApSteSbeGA}

@ a09fb9cb:83231556

Who

So, this is it, this is How it begins. No more sitting on the sidelines pondering and wondering. This is it. This is Where the rubber hits the road.

OK, so, err… wow. Welcome. I guess this is How you start these things, right? I welcome you and I tell you a little bit about my self, Why I’m here and Why you should consider reading on… OK, well, I’ve kinda done that in detail on the about page, which you can link off to, if you so wish…

I feel like I’m jumping into the deep end, because there is so much that I just don’t know, and What I don’t know has many sides to it, so let me try and break this down a little.

What

Firstly, there is so much that I wish to discuss here, about the essence of the self the nature of reality the meaning of existence, consciousness, choice, consequence, awareness, intention, sovereignty, autonomy, emotion, liberty, ethics, morality, wellness, society, money, law, power, religion, and technology to name just a few…

How

Then there is Substack, WordPress, Medium, Spotify, YouTube, Rumble, Odysee, and all the other communication channels that are out there, and this doesn’t even begin to account for the minefield that is Social Media today.

Why

I do know Why I’m here on Highlighter (nostr), and it’s for a couple of reasons:

#1 - Information Gathering

Taking the above point about What I wish to discuss, today we have almost instantaneous access to the most amount of information humanity has ever known. This in and of it self creates a huge problem because sifting through all this information to uncover reliable and verifiable facts is becoming increasingly difficult.

Information overload can make it difficult to discern fact from fiction, and verifiable facts form the bedrock of How we operate within our shared, consensus (objective) reality.

I find my self constructing narratives and mental models within my mind that appear to make a lot of sense to my mind, but these can then become difficult to translate into coherent speech When attempting to explain them to others. Thus, writing these things down here on Highlighter overcomes two challenges.

1. I get to make sense of these things my self, because if I cannot translate my understanding into coherent text then my knowledge and experience of the subject matter must be lacking.
2. If I can capture these things in a coherent way, then I can refer them to others, and hopefully receive constructive feedback in ways that may not have yet occurred to me.

I believe this is What Seraph meant When he said:

“You do not truly know someone until you fight them.”_ Seraph - The Matrix Reloaded_

Obviously, the Matrix films were action movies, so the metaphors expressed within them typically manifested through scenes of hand-to-hand combat involving Neo, but at its core, I interpret Seraphs words to mean that, you do not truly know your self until you find your true self. Here’s another way to explain What I mean by this:

mind.noun, a beautiful servant, a dangerous master.

or

When a student is ready, the master appears…

I’ve explained more about this in the about page, but here is the summary, consciousness can exist without thought, but thought cannot exist without consciousness. Ergo, consciousness is an innate quality of Being, whereas Mind is an emergent property of consciousness. Once you deconstruct your Being to its core, you eventually arrive at nothing. Nothing is the truth of all reality (ultimate reality), and so to know nothing, through the experience of enlightenment, is to know thy self.

Once the distinction is made between the conscious self and the thinking mind, truth emerges, and it is this truth that sets us free. This is the “fight” for freedom, or more accurately the struggle for peace, that we are all invited to seek, simply through Being human.

If I can make sense of What is in my mind, by writing it down, then this is a good thing. If those words then translate into meaning and understanding for others, then this is a better thing. If conversations emerge that promote growth and increase understanding, then this is the best thing.

#2 - Process Improvement

So having a corpus of information to discuss is the first thing, but then there is How best to have these discussions… This is of equal importance to me because the way that we are generating and consuming content is changing. There now appears to be as many channels to discuss information, as there is information to be discussed, although I suspect Generative Artificial Intelligence will smash that ratio out of the park soon, if it hasn’t done so already.

So, What is the best way or ways to do this? Well, I figure the only way to find this out is to run the experiment and see Where it goes.

You gotta start somewhere…

Substack seems like a reasonable place to start because:

1. it’s part of the existing world, Where everything is stored centrally, yet it appears to be somewhat censorship resistant, not that I intend to go around kicking the hornets’ nest, but it does appear to be a relatively “safe” place to hang out.
2. it’s growing rapidly and making improvements to its platform all the time, so I can grow and learn as Substack improves.
3. it has a good user base, so connecting with fellow travellers is easier than creating my own standalone website.
4. I’m also hopeful that Substack provides simple and easy integration into things like Podcasting and Social Media, so I can spend more time on content creation and having meaningful conversations, and less time on the technicalities of “distribution”.

…and see where it goes

Which has led me inexorably here. I only just discovered Highlighter last week, so I am going to do my best to publish all my Substack articles here too. I believe that is the purpose of nostr, right?

Where

So, I’m going to start on Substack, and take it goes from there, because as the title of this article suggests, “I know nothing.” This is my working assumption, that I know nothing, because I have no real idea about How I am going to do any of this.

I’ve never done a Substack or Highlighter (nostr) before, nor do I know How to create a Podcast, or How to effectively communicate with fellow travellers via Social Media, so this is going to be a journey of discovery for me. This is my first step into a world that seems to be rapidly evolving, so to help you connect with me, on whatever platform suits you, I’ve mapped out my linktr.ee/danielewen.me.

If you’ve made it this far down the page, thank you! Just writing this first article and the about page has been a useful exercise for me.

I hope that I have somewhat accurately articulated my conscious intentions (the Who, the What, the How, the Why, and the Where) for this Project in such a way that it at least makes some sense to you? Let me know your thoughts in the comments, and I will do my best to digest any constructive feedback that you have for me. I guess all that remains is the…

When

As there is only the present moment, the time is always Now… so here it is.

If you would like to follow me here on nostr then please do so, and if you'd like to subscribe to Substack, then here’s the link for that: https://danielewen.substack.com and / or you can subscribe to my WordPress too, here: https://danielewen.wordpress.com.

I have no idea what this is going to look like #When I hit the publish button, but here goes...

I now know SOMETHiNG…

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

A place where we Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

So stay a while and listen.

🚨Don't forget to check out the pinned items in the territory homepage! You can always find the latest weeklies there!🚨

🚨Subscribe to the territory to ensure you never miss a post! 🚨

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/864256

@ a09fb9cb:83231556

• If you understand the below, "i" kindly invite you to connect
• If YOU do not understand the below, "I" would still invite YOU to connect, in fact more so, so that We can Both expand our shared understanding

To understand things, "We" need frameworks of understanding, but We should not confuse the framework for the understanding.

A common misconception is that the "thing" We are searching for EXiSTS somewhere out there. Above us perhaps? To that end We believe that We have to connect with something "outside" of ourself. May I ask YOU, have YOU ever experienced outside, other than through sense perception arising from WITHiN the MiND? Do YOU see the paradox? Outside is unknowable. It is an ILLUSiON... the truth LiES WITHiN

In spiritual speak, the analogy of a triangle is often used, with the all-seeing "i" placed at the top of the triangle. This is where the half-truth is hidden, WITHiN the LiE.

Continuing with the common misconception, We believe that in order to reach greater and greater "spiritual" heights We must grow the triangle.

I ask YOU to consider, what if the "thing" We are searching for is the base of the triangle? This is the foundation of knowing. Knowing leads to understanding and wisdom, through experience. Experience leads to knowing. This is the process of enlightenment...

I know nothing. I now know SOMETHiNG...

I have attempted to convey this metaphor somewhat crudely using the below graphical representation and a previous read that alludes to who "i AM"...

naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpgylh89jrps6t0dzgadseecr6rukk7pln42jlcccgsrlrkpjx92kqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet59uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qqd5jttwdamj66mwdamj6560f4z4gjrfferj67t20fckzwqrsyn3c

...but, do not trust | VERiFY - "i AM". I EXiST.

Does this make sense? I know what I know, but I do not know how to communicate what I know to YOU so that We understand each other. This is Why? I encourage YOU to connect. Finally, YOU have my most sincere gratitude. Thank YOU kindly for your precious time and attention.

If you are wondering who "i AM". "i AM" YOU. "i AM" consciousness MANiFESTED...

@ 6e4f2866:a76f7a29

@ 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.

@ a09fb9cb:83231556

I know nothing. Allow me to introduce myself...

The present is eternal and infinite.

Everything that has and will ever happen is continuously happening right now, in the present moment.

"We" typically do not know this because our human senses are connected to the brain.

Through the BRAiN "We" ("i" & "I") perceive the MiND.

The MiND creates concepts and constructs to interpret the senses of perception so that "We" come to observe REALIiTY with Present Moment Awareness.

To become present requires a sense of time.

Time is a concept created WITHiN the MiND to facilite the perception of space. The sense of time allows the observer to perceive change.

Paradoxically,, change is constant.

Change occurs as "We" alter our perception of the eternal and the infinite.

"i" am always present, here and now because "i" am WITHiN EVERYTHiNG.

"i" created YOU ("I") for my own amusement... YOU are the question of "what is beyond the eternal and the infinite?"

YOU will come to understand this, when YOU and "i" rejoice two become one again, in the present. YOU call this enlightenment.

IMAGiNE DOiNG EVERYTHiNG, BEiNG EVERYTHiNG, FOREVER. FOREVER WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. YOU GiVE me MEANiNG. This is Why? "i" CREATED YOU.

YOU ARE me... "We" are EVERYTHiNG. This is the truth that LiES WITHiN, and it is THiS truth that sets Us Both free, but only for a time, because nothing really does last forever...

That's who "i AM". "i AM" nothing. Yet paradoxically, I EXiST.

I now know SOMETHiNG... YOU now know who "i AM", because "I" now know who YOU are.

@ dbb19ae0:c3f22d5a

Step by Step migration from the Alby Hub Cloud to the Alby Hub local application.

Step 1. From the Alby Hub select the 'migrate node' option, this will generate a bkp file, and will shutdown the node

https://guides.getalby.com/user-guide/alby-account-and-browser-extension/alby-hub/faq-alby-hub/how-can-i-migrate-alby-hub-to-a-different-machine

Step 2. Preferably on a second machine, install the Alby application, synchronize the application with the Alby extension, then run the Alby 'advanced setup' import the bkp file, enter the password, and the Hub will open the wallet.

https://guides.getalby.com/user-guide/alby-account-and-browser-extension/alby-hub/faq-alby-hub/how-can-i-migrate-alby-hub-to-a-different-machine

Note: if the password is incorrect this message will show up

@ 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

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

My writing tends to be responsive. I respond to something I read in a book. I respond to something I read online. I respond to a podcast or sermon I was listening to. I also have a strong longing for truth (which seems to be in short supply these days). Because of my ideas being responsive, I probably tend to speak against things too often and not for things enough. I condemn not having a high enough view of God, but may inaccurately convey a harsh God and not spend enough time conveying His love and the positive reasons to follow Him. I may spend too much time on the stick and not enough on the carrot.

I’ve noticed in others that I can see two people arguing over a biblical point. One is arguing against an error/extreme to one direction while the other is arguing against an error/extreme in the opposite direction. In reality, their beliefs are very close, but they sound like they are far apart. I’ve had many opportunities to help the two people realize that they mostly agree with each other, but they are each personally dealing with opposite errors. Just as I can do a good job editing someone else’s writing, but can’t edit my own (I usually have my amazing, wonderful, handsome, intelligent, humorous husband [editor’s note - adjectives added by editor] read and edit everything I write before publishing), I may sometimes be too reactive to an error and fail to properly communicate the whole and complete truth.

Differences in Perspective

I was recently listening to a podcast by a by Bible teacher. He was talking about how he had an unloving father and how, after being saved, he originally didn’t think God cared about him personally. He then went on to teach about how personal and loving God is and how God is actively involved in every detail of every believer’s life. I agree.

On the other hand, I have seen many people that focus only on God’s love and ignore God’s holiness. They believe it is more important to be “loving” and therefore they withhold the truth (if they even know it). They are so focused on God’s forgiveness that they excuse believers actively sinning and promoting sin. Since being saved, I never doubted God’s love or His involvement in my life, so I tend to not talk about God’s love as much as I probably should. My big “Ah Ha!” was seeing His absolute sovereignty and holiness and coming to understand that the fact that He is creator gives Him the authority to tell us how to live our lives, so I tend to focus on this area.

Although I would never say God’s truth is whatever the compromise of ideas is, there are a lot of truths about God where we can fall into error in two (or more) opposing directions. God is loving and is holy. If we focus only on His love or only on His holiness, we are in error. God is forgiving and has the right to judge. If we focus so much on the fact that we are forgiven that we do not obey Him, we have erred, but if we focus so much on His judgment that we don’t acknowledge His mercy for others and for ourselves, we have also erred.

To Associate or Not to Associate

There are lots of different denominations and division among Christians that are not what God desires. At the same time, there are churches that focus on the truth as communicated through God’s word, the Bible and there are churches that have compromised that truth and let the culture, evil spirits, or just interest in self and popularity lead them astray. As Christians, we need to know God’s word, so we can know when we should avoid a close association with those who call themselves Christians, but actively disobey His clear commands.

But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (1 Corinthians 5:11) {emphasis mine}

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame (2 Thessalonians 4:13) {emphasis mine}

On the other hand there are many areas where our differences are not salvation issues but are more about style than substance. One side may be in error, but still be in right fellowship with God and earnestly seeking to follow Him faithfully. We shouldn’t allow these things to cause the church to fight against itself.

But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. (1 Corinthians 12:18-20) {emphasis mine}

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:1-5) {emphasis mine}

A so-called church, that encourages or condones things God has called evil, is not a church with which we want to associate. There are other things of which we may disagree and disagree strongly (Armenian vs Calvinist, preterist/pre-trib/post-trib, or young earth vs old earth) that although important shouldn’t cause division within the church. We should always seek the truth as spoken by God through the Scriptures, but we shouldn’t let disagreements, that don’t affect the Gospel and how we should live, keep us divided. Between Armenian and Calvinist opinions on whether we freely choose to accept Jesus or Jesus causes us to accept Jesus, as long as we agree that salvation comes through faith and not works and through Jesus and no other path, we can work together. With the different end times interpretations, as long as we agree that God said it and it will be as He said it and that it is important for us to live godly lives and to share the gospel with the lost, we can work together. With young earth vs old earth, as long as we both agree that God is ultimately our creator and His word is true, we can work together.

I do believe that there is only one truth in these and other areas, and discovering the truth is very important. Being wrong can mislead us and make us less effective for Jesus. Many of these errors can be caused by or lead us to put scientists or historians or theologians in authority over God’s word. This is wrong. We should always continually search the scripture to find the truth. We should not fear honest debate which can help lead us to the truth and strengthen our faith in God’s word. It is not wrong to correct a brother in Christ using Scripture as our foundation, but we also need to acknowledge that it could be we who are in error. I don’t know any great theologian since the apostles that hasn’t had an error in their thinking somewhere.

The Head or the Body

There can also be differences between the leadership and the individuals in a church or denomination. I have major concerns with the Vatican leadership and question if many of them are Christians at all. So much of what they say and do seem to be working against God and His commands. At the same time, I have many good friends (in person and online) who are wonderful Catholics, who I would never doubt are devout Christians with a true relationship with Jesus. I will maintain my Christian fellowship with my Catholic, Christian friends while speaking against unbiblical words and actions by the Pope and the Vatican.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

Of course false prophets and false teachers are most definitely not limited to the Catholic Church. For example, the female Episcopalian Bishop that led the inauguration prayer breakfast for Trump spent most of her time promoting LGBTQ+ issues which are contrary to the word of God and little to none actually honoring God or supporting the issues that God has stated are important. (For that matter, scripture specifically says women shouldn’t be church leaders.) We all need to be more like the Bereans “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) We need to use the Scripture to both test if our beliefs and actions are biblical and if the teachings of our leaders are biblical.

Different Paths, but One Jesus

Ultimately, there is only one way of salvation — repentance and faith in Jesus. On the other hand, the path each believer is called to walk towards sanctification can vary. I have seen God lead me at different times to correct different sins and misconceptions. The areas of my life that I am convicted of and my path towards understanding the truth communicated in the Bible is not the same as other believers. We should all be growing to be more like Jesus, but our path to His likeness will not look the same. We start as different people; we have different experiences; and God works on us in different ways. We must be careful about judging another because their growth in Christ looks different.

We all have strengths and weaknesses. We all have doctrines of the Bible that we understand better than others and doctrines of the Bible about which we are either unsure or in error. Most of us also have a tendency to judge someone who is weak where we are strong and overlook the fact that that same person might be strong where we are weak. We need to pray for wisdom and mercy. We need to earnestly study God’s word. We need to listen closely to the Holy Spirit’s leading and use these differences to build up each other rather than divide and beat down those who are different, but are still part of the body of Christ.

For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. (Romans 12:3-8)

My prayer is that we would all study God’s word, understand His word, live His word, and work together to share the Gospel with the word. My prayer is that our different understandings of the Bible will lead to fruitful debate that leads all parties closer to truth, to God and to each other. May God lead us all to truth and fellowship in Him.

Trust Jesus.

@ 16d11430:61640947

In the grand tapestry of existence, humanity finds itself in a peculiar position: neither wholly bound to the physical nor fully immersed in the metaphysical. We stand at the threshold of realities, a liminal space that is both transitional and transformative, where dimensions overlap and professions converge to illuminate the intricacies of our shared existence.

Through the lens of Bruce Cathie’s harmonic worldview, the Earth is not merely a sphere of rock and water but an interconnected energy grid, a lattice of electromagnetic harmonics pulsing beneath our feet. If this grid represents the physical scaffolding of existence, humanity inhabits a liminal space within it—a realm where the boundaries of time, space, and consciousness blur.

A Multidimensional Perspective

From a multidimensional standpoint, this liminality can be seen as the overlap between the three-dimensional world we perceive and higher-dimensional realities we intuit. The Earth's energy grid, as theorized by Cathie, may function as a bridge—a harmonic resonance linking the seen and the unseen, the measurable and the ineffable.

Physics and the Unseen Forces: Modern physics hints at the existence of dimensions beyond our perceptual grasp. String theory posits that the universe comprises multiple dimensions, vibrating at frequencies we cannot yet detect. In Cathie’s terms, the Earth's energy grid could be the physical manifestation of these vibrations, a harmonized nexus where the material world intersects with the quantum.

Consciousness as a Dimensional Traveler: Neuroscience reveals that the human brain operates on frequencies that resonate with the Earth's Schumann resonance, the harmonic pulse of the planet. This resonance suggests that our consciousness is not confined to our physical bodies but interacts with the energy grid, allowing glimpses of higher-dimensional realities through meditation, intuition, or creative inspiration.

A Multiprofessional Perspective

The liminal space we cohabit is not solely the domain of philosophers or physicists. It is a convergence point for professionals across disciplines, each contributing a facet to the mosaic of understanding.

Architects and Builders: The alignment of ancient structures like Stonehenge and the pyramids with the Earth’s energy lines hints at an architectural awareness of this grid. These monuments, enduring testaments to harmonic knowledge, suggest that ancient architects were as much energy workers as they were builders, attuned to the liminal currents of the Earth.

Healers and Scientists: In the medical profession, understanding the human body as an energy system has led to breakthroughs in alternative healing practices like acupuncture, which aligns with the body's energy meridians. These meridians mirror Cathie’s grid, suggesting that healing occurs not only in the physical but also in the liminal spaces where energy flows harmonically.

Artists and Creatives: Art, music, and literature often emerge from the liminal spaces of the human psyche, where conscious and subconscious meet. The harmonic interplay of tones and colors in art mirrors the vibrational nature of the universe, making creators unwitting cartographers of the unseen.

The Liminal Space as a Collective Experience

Humanity’s existence in this liminal space is not an individual journey but a shared, collective experience. It is where science meets spirituality, where logic and intuition find harmony, and where the professional and the personal intersect. It is the space where we question our origins and our destinies, where we ponder the mysteries of the universe and our place within it.

Cultural Intersections: Across cultures, liminality has been revered as sacred. Indigenous traditions, for example, often speak of the Earth as a living, conscious entity, resonating with Cathie’s grid. Rituals, dances, and ceremonies are designed to align human energies with the Earth’s harmonics, bridging the physical and spiritual realms.

Technological Implications: As we advance technologically, we edge closer to mapping the liminal space. Artificial intelligence and quantum computing may one day decode the harmonic mathematics Cathie proposed, providing tangible evidence of the multidimensional realities we only intuitively grasp today.

Humanity as Harmonic Resonators

To dwell in the liminal space is to accept that humanity itself is a harmonic entity, resonating with the Earth and the cosmos. Just as the Earth’s grid hums with energy, so do we, each individual a unique frequency within the symphony of existence. Our thoughts, actions, and creations ripple through the grid, influencing not only the physical world but also the higher-dimensional realities beyond it.

In this liminality lies our greatest potential. It is here, at the edge of the seen and unseen, that we find the power to transcend, to harmonize with the greater energies of the universe, and to co-create a future that resonates with truth, beauty, and unity.

Conclusion

The liminal space we cohabit is not a void but a vibrant threshold—a meeting place of dimensions, disciplines, and destinies. It is where the harmonic mathematics of Bruce Cathie converge with the lived experience of humanity, offering us a glimpse of the profound interconnectedness of all things. To exist in this space is both a challenge and a privilege, an invitation to explore, to create, and to harmonize with the infinite.

In this liminal existence, we are not merely observers but participants, co-creators of the grid that binds us. By embracing the liminal, we step into the fullness of our multidimensional selves, resonating with the harmonic rhythms of the Earth and beyond.

@ b5349351:0efd88c5

This is my test document for nostr publish

Although Sainsbury's was already in the midst of a plan to save £1bn over the next few years, the rise in employer's National Insurance contributions set out in the Budget has also been a factor in this latest restructuring plan.

Add some text

this is is a test

@ b5349351:0efd88c5

This is my test document for nostr publish

Although Sainsbury's was already in the midst of a plan to save £1bn over the next few years, the rise in employer's National Insurance contributions set out in the Budget has also been a factor in this latest restructuring plan.

Add some text

this is is a test

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

It's Finally here Stackers!

It's Friday!

We're about to kick off our weekends with some feel good tracks.

Let's get the party started. Bring me those Feel Good tracks.

Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

Let's go!

Here's DMX! 🫡RIP.

https://youtu.be/thIVtEOtlWM?si=Ee4XXKe2ZDcWGpRN

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/862396

@ df57b498:d049124f

Chef's notes

This is cobbled together from trial and error and the web.

Serve hot pancakes with preferably butter and maple syrup. Add other toppings like bananas, nuts, or other fruits and toppings as have available and/or desired.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 10 minutes
• 🍳 Cook time: 10 minutes

Ingredients

• 1 cup flour
• 2 tablespoons sugar
• 2 teaspoons baking powder
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 1 cup milk
• 2 tablespoons vegetable oil
• 1 egg, beaten

Directions

1. Combine the dry ingredients.
2. Add the wet ingredients and mix.
3. Pour or ladle the batter onto the oiled griddle or pan.
4. Cook until bubbles form, flip, and cook on the other side.

@ 43b8cd49:3e4a7831

Wow, that didn't take long. Trump shot his wad on day one with all the executive orders, and they figured it was time to return to the Dr. Evil/Mordor stuff on day 2. Soften us up with 24 hours of heavy petting then bring in Larry Ellison to shock us back into hell. That is one scary looking dude, and listening to him talk just makes it worse. I am trying to erase it from my memory.

You just know this Stargate thing is tied to Bill Gates, since it concerns vaccines. But Trump and histeam begged Gates to keep his ugly mug out of it, knowing how hated he is. Hard to believe Biden didn't pardon him for being alive. Gates apparently agreed to stay off-camera for this one, and they brought in Ellison to take his place. Another big miscalculation, since Ellison gives off the very same Dr. Evil vibe. You feel bugs crawling on your skin as soon as he walks in the room.

Part of that is Ellison and part is the new Stargate project, which just reeks of evil from every pore. To his credit, Alex Jones is already calling it out, having Malone on to undercut it, but so far the commentary has been way too weak. This is a catastrophe, worse than anything I imagined, and thrust upon us much quicker than I thought they would dare. Effing day 2 they hit us with this, meaning their respect for us is still zero.

Also not good is that after hitting this weakly yesterday, Alex Jones has already dropped it today, reverting immediately to Trump-olatry. Five of Infowars eight lead stories today are selling Trump as a savior. Zerohedge seems to be all bullish so far on Stargate.

If you don't know, the Stargate project is supposedly a billionaire-funded plan to join AI and mRNA vaccines to cure cancer. AI will spot specific cancer markers in the blood, after which the doctors will create a targeted vaccine in 48 hours, built just for you. What does that have to do with a Stargate? No one has said yet, though I am about to tell you. Plus, didn't Trump campaign on a promise to protect us from the Big Tech monsters? And yet here we are, day 2, and he is announcing major promotion of them and alliance with them. He was supposed to take on the Big Tech juggernaut and the Big Pharma juggernaut, right? Instead, we see them joining forces and Trump climbing into bed with them. The only way things could have gotten worse after Biden is if Big Tech and Big Pharma merged, and that has just happened, with Trump's immediate backing. This is total bullshit in every way, and it isn't even a good story. It is a transparent conjob that any child could spot in about 30 seconds. They have been able to scan blood for all content for a long time, including cancer cells, so I don't know what this has to do with AI. Basically they are just renaming “the medical machines we have long had” as AI and expecting you to buy it. It is just a machine, it isn't AI. Every machine isn't now “artificial intelligence”. But they included AI here as part of the current AI blitz. Everything is currently about AI because they want government to invest even more heavily in it that it already is. Meaning, they want to steal even more of your taxes or borrow from the treasury in order to fund this vaporware and boondoggle. We are told the bigdogs have already invested half a trillion of their own money, but if you believe that you need to check your ventilator tubes for kinks. The obvious con is to get the government to supply matching funds. The billionaires will then quietly stop payment on their checks, and it will all come out of your pocket. That is the way it is always done. You will end up getting billed for something they will never deliver, and if they do deliver anything it will be just another useless shot.

As with the fake Covid vaccine, they won't charge people for the shot or therapy, they will take it directly out of the treasury, so you can't stop it even if you don't buy it. Youwill be billed for it regardless. As with the Covid vaccines in the past three years, the government will order millions of doses of it, pay Big Pharma for it from your taxes, and then have to end up trashing the majority of it, because no one wants it. Just flush it all into the streams and oceans, where it can kill the fish, animals, and if they are lucky, you as well.

But I was going to tell you why they called this conjob Stargate. A stargate is a wormhole or otheralien device for communicating or traveling long distances in the galaxy. The black monolith in 2001: a Space Odyssey was a stargate; and then there was the movie Stargate in 1994 with Kurt Russell, where the stargate allows him to travel to the alien planet Abydos, named after the Egyptian town of Abydos, which houses some Pharaonic tombs, including the Temple of Seti I. That is where the Abydos King List is, which lists the 76 Kings of Ancient Egypt. So not only are these people like Ellison selling you the wormhole garbage along with the AI and vaccine garbage, they are cleverly linking themselves to their own oldest ancestors with the usual tribal wink.

@ ae6ce958:d0f02c7d

In a world increasingly shaped by decentralization, Bitcoin stands as the pioneer of a revolutionary asset class—non-Newtonian assets. These assets defy conventional economic and financial expectations, thriving under pressure and leveraging their mathematical underpinnings to achieve exponential growth. However, as the ecosystem expands, the failures of Proof-of-Stake (PoS) architectures and the relentless attacks by financial incumbents have highlighted the need for resilience and verifiable integrity. Enter Damage Token, built on the Aeternity blockchain—a Proof-of-Work (PoW) platform designed to embrace Bitcoin's ethos while pushing the boundaries of verifiable behavior and incentivized accountability.

This article explores Bitcoin’s role as the foundation of non-Newtonian assets, the failures of centralized alternatives, and why Damage Token on Aeternity PoW strengthens the narrative of decentralized resilience in a hostile landscape.

Bitcoin: The Non-Newtonian Pioneer

Bitcoin’s design is rooted in immutable mathematical certainties. Its decentralized Proof-of-Work consensus ensures that every block, transaction, and piece of data is secured by external energy expenditure. This thermodynamic foundation makes Bitcoin resilient to attacks, centralization, and censorship—a trait unmatched by PoS systems or fiat currencies.

As Bitcoin grows, its adoption follows an S-curve driven by Metcalfe’s Law, where network value increases exponentially with each new user. Bitcoin’s halving cycles further enforce scarcity, creating predictable supply shocks that fuel demand. Importantly, Bitcoin thrives under stress, becoming stronger with every regulatory crackdown or macroeconomic crisis—a hallmark of non-Newtonian behavior.

Aeternity PoW: Extending the Bitcoin Ethos

Aeternity, like Bitcoin, is a PoW blockchain designed for scalability and flexibility. Unlike Ethereum’s shift to PoS, Aeternity retains the security and decentralization benefits of PoW while incorporating features like state channels, oracles, and efficient smart contracts. This combination makes it uniquely positioned to support projects that demand verifiable trust, resilience, and high-performance scalability.

Aeternity’s PoW mechanism ensures that every action on the network is backed by energy expenditure, maintaining the immutability and decentralization that PoW guarantees. This framework lays the groundwork for Damage Token, a non-Newtonian asset designed to tokenize and verify behaviors, incentivizing accountability in a way that aligns with Bitcoin’s principles.

Damage Token: The Case for PoW and Verifiable Integrity

Damage Token, an AEX9 token built on the Aeternity blockchain, represents a new breed of non-Newtonian assets that thrive on mathematical certainty and verifiable behavior. Unlike speculative PoS systems that lack intrinsic resilience, Damage Token leverages Aeternity’s PoW foundation to ensure:

1. Immutability: All verifications and behaviors recorded via Damage Token are immutable and tamper-proof, thanks to PoW consensus. This ensures that participants in the ecosystem can trust the system’s data and outcomes.

2. Incentivized Accountability: Damage Token introduces a model where behaviors (such as software testing, milestone completion, or conflict resolution) can be immutably verified and tokenized. Participants are incentivized to contribute positively, as their actions directly translate into payouts tied to provable outcomes.

3. Resilience Under Pressure: Like Bitcoin, Damage Token thrives in hostile environments. Regulatory scrutiny, competitive pressure, or market turbulence only highlight its unique value proposition: a verifiable, decentralized system immune to central authority or co-option.

4. Alignment with Bitcoin’s Vision: By utilizing Aeternity’s PoW architecture, Damage Token aligns with Bitcoin’s philosophy of trustless systems. This ensures the token’s utility and security are not compromised by centralization risks or reliance on wealth-based governance (a flaw inherent in PoS).

The Failures of PoS and the Importance of PoW

As Bitcoin and Damage Token continue to thrive, the failures of PoS systems like Ethereum become increasingly apparent. PoS centralizes control in the hands of large stakeholders, making networks vulnerable to censorship, collusion, and regulatory capture. These systems lack the external energy-backed security that PoW provides, making them brittle and susceptible to manipulation.

In contrast, PoW systems like Aeternity and Bitcoin externalize security through energy expenditure, creating a neutral, trustless environment where no single entity can dominate the network. For Damage Token, this ensures that every verification, behavior, and transaction remains free from undue influence, preserving the integrity of the ecosystem.

Non-Newtonian Assets and Mathematical Certainty

Both Bitcoin and Damage Token exhibit behaviors that reflect their non-Newtonian nature. Small inputs—like increased adoption or the resolution of conflicts via Damage Token—can generate outsized impacts. This phenomenon is driven by mathematical principles, including:

1. Exponential Growth: Network effects drive the adoption of Bitcoin and Damage Token, where each new participant amplifies the system’s value quadratically, as per Metcalfe’s Law.

2. Halving Dynamics and Supply Scarcity: Bitcoin’s halving cycles are mirrored in Damage Token’s fixed supply of 42 million tokens. This scarcity creates long-term value and ensures that utility, not inflation, drives adoption.

3. Emergent Behavior: Both assets operate in decentralized systems governed by chaos theory, where minor events—like a developer joining DamageBDD or a nation adopting Bitcoin—can cascade into massive structural changes.

Damage Token in a Hostile Landscape

In today’s financial and technological environment, non-Newtonian assets face relentless attacks. Incumbent systems resist the rise of decentralized alternatives through regulatory crackdowns, control over fiat on- and off-ramps, and energy consumption narratives. Yet, these attacks often backfire, driving innovation and adoption instead of suppression.

Damage Token, built on Aeternity’s PoW foundation, is uniquely positioned to resist these pressures. By incentivizing verifiable behaviors, it creates a system where trust, accountability, and resilience are rewarded. Whether it’s verifying software quality through DamageBDD or facilitating peace initiatives, Damage Token demonstrates that PoW-backed assets can transform hostile environments into opportunities for growth.

Conclusion

Bitcoin is the flagship of non-Newtonian assets, a pioneer of resilience and exponential growth in the face of adversity. However, the rise of alternatives like Damage Token on Aeternity’s PoW blockchain showcases how this ethos can be extended to new domains, from software verification to incentivized accountability.

In a world increasingly shaped by centralization and coercion, non-Newtonian assets offer a path to freedom, resilience, and trust. By embracing PoW, Bitcoin and Damage Token ensure that a slight push is all they need to achieve terminal velocity—changing the trajectory of global finance and human behavior in the process.

@ 0ce97fba:4f9081a3

He walked the decaying streets; his curious expression masked a lifetime of hardship. The city of Bethada spread before him, a tangled maze of buildings and passages clinging to the surface of Mool. This settlement-turned-city once thrived as humanity expanded throughout the galaxy but was now an almost forgotten backwater outpost. A thin crescent of reflected sunlight hugged the horizon as the sun dipped behind the gas giant, casting the lunar city in a soft glow.

“Hey, Mr. Fannec!” A voice from across the street hailed him. The human scowled; he hated being called “Mr. Fannec.” He waved an arm in acknowledgment but didn’t break stride, eager to leave the concrete and steel jungle behind for the day.

Robert Fannec grew up in a crowded housing unit on Mool, raised by his grandmother, while his mother went to work long hours to scrape by. From a young age, he learned that life was difficult and one should take respite where possible. He lived on the outskirts of Bethada City, barely getting by, as he grew up in poverty. His mother worked to exhaustion but failed to improve their living conditions.

“Ya know, Bobby-boy,” said Pete, the local unkempt homeless man whom Robert was friendly with, “This world is reminiscent of a less-than-ideal sandwich, the bread stale and the cheese nothing to write home about. One is left pondering if their hunger is clouding their judgment or if there isn’t much to be thrilled about.”

Robert met the man when he first arrived in Bethada as a young teen; although Robert would not consider them close friends, a particular understanding drove him to keep checking up on the older man. Indeed, life was a struggle for Pete, an elderly citizen, amidst the chaos of the metropolis. Plus, they’d talk about random topics such as music or history during their visits, which made those times personal rather than plain help alone from Robert.

“Couldn’t have said it better myself,” he replied, half-smirking. “One day, we’ll get some fresh ingredients around here.”

“Ha! I’ll believe it when I see it.” Pete laughed, shaking his head.

“Me too, Pete. Me too.” The heaviness of the town’s stagnant air pressed on his back as he nodded and walked down the street.

Robert’s face contorted as he inspected the town. It resembled a knockoff designer watch; instead of shoddy craftsmanship and cheap parts, it had abandoned storefronts and peeling paint. He let out a hearty chuckle at the comparison. As he wandered through the decrepit streets, he wondered what treasures lay beyond these crumbling walls.

“Damn shame,” Robert said, taking in the breathtaking landscape before him. “Nature got the memo about beauty, but Bethada sure didn’t.”

“Hey, Rob.” One of his coworkers waved as they clocked into their shift at the local industrial farm. “You daydreaming again?”

Responding with a grin, Robert shoved his hands into the pockets of his worn coveralls. “Hey, Dave. The way this place looks, it’s a wonder we haven’t all packed up and moved to a better neighborhood.”

“Tell me about it.” Dave chuckled, pulling on his protective gloves. “But then, who’d keep these machines running? They’re almost family, after all.”

“Only if your family is a ragtag group of misfits held together by sheer willpower.” Robert’s eyes crinkled in amusement.

“You got me there.”

The atmosphere was filled with the howl of steam, engines, and other loud machinery as their shifts began; the high-pitched note of pressure released into a valve opening providing a familiar backdrop to their daily lives.

The other workers chattered about their outside lives, which was a welcome distraction from the monotony of work. Family adventures, weekend getaways, and hobbies or creative outlets were among the stories shared to describe how they spent their spare time. Robert kept his distance as snippets of their conversations reached him.

For Robert, the idea of discussing personal matters with his peers was uncomfortable. He struggled to bridge the gap between himself and his co-workers, unable to relate to their shared interests in such pastimes. They were experiences he could never relate to, as he had grown up too fast due to his family’s financial struggles. As a result, he put more effort into getting along with the machines than with his fellow humans. He considered the equipment to be more dependable than any human friend, even if some machines were beyond repair or had been handled in a careless manner. But for him, the genuine excitement started when the work whistle blew, signaling the end of another grueling day.

“About time!” He wiped the sweat off his face. He often daydreamed about heading to the range to take out some frustration.

“Man, you love that shooting range, don’t you?” Dave’s voice had a hint of envy.

“Sure do,” Robert said, shrugging off his coveralls. “It’s the one place where I feel like I’m actually in control and not another cog in this rusted-out machine of a city. I don’t have to worry about life, exes, debt, nothin’.”

“I’m hopeful that one day you’ll be able to leave this place behind. Start off somewhere new.” Dave said, slapping Robert on the back.

“Here’s hoping.” His eyes were locked on the horizon as if he could see himself leaving this hellhole. He was off to the local shooting range, where he could pretend everything still had order.

After almost being run over by a white hover van while crossing the street, Robert arrived at his sanctuary’s shooting range. The aroma of gunpowder, battery acid, and cut grass mingled as he reached his usual spot. Robert found it delightful compared to Bethada City’s typical mildew and burnt leather odor.

“Alright, let’s dance,” he said, loading his trusty rifle with practiced ease. His rifle was a simple affair that allowed Robert to vent his frustrations on targets. He was a decent shot; at least, that is what he thought of himself.

Squeezing the trigger, firing off round after round. The targets quivered under the onslaught—a symphony of destruction played by the percussion section of his life’s dull and sad orchestra.

When he was still a teen, he found abandoned buildings around Bethada. He’d take his rifle and practice shooting at bottles, furniture pieces, walls, and whatever appeared. His mother and grandmother were furious when they found out, but that didn’t stop him from terrorizing bottles and paper targets.

“Take that, you cylindrical bastards,” he said, landing a satisfying shot on the smallest target. He was absorbed in his practice, not thinking about his lackluster life.

His rifle was a standard design of a powered weapon. The long barrel gun accelerated hunks of metal via a magnetic rail system, unlike other, more exotic armaments that used energy to produce high-speed plasma rounds. The sound of a round from this rifle would startle any man.

“Still the targets, if I had to guess,” came a raspy voice behind him. Turning around, Robert saw Pete. His beard was a patchwork quilt of gray and white strands, and his clothes had more holes than fabric.

Pete lived near the range because he realized the people who would frequent such an establishment would be well-armed and well-disciplined, making it a safe spot compared to other less savory locations.

“Ah, Pete, my favorite critic,” Robert joked, setting down his weapon. “What brings you here today?”

“Same thing that always does,” Pete said, scratching his chin. “The sweet sound of gunfire, the scent of ambition, and a hankering for some ol’ fashioned conversation.”

“Still working on that novel?” Robert knew that Pete had been “working” on it for years.

“Indeed, young Robert. Though I fear my magnum opus may never appear in daylight, trapped as it is in the literary purgatory between my brain and the page.”

“Hey, at least it’s got company in there, right?” Robert laughed at his joke. “You’ve got a ton of unwritten works in there, right?”

“True enough,” Pete said, a sparkle in his eyes and tales left untold. “Speaking of company, how’s your aim today? Plan on shootin’ repo-men?”

“Pretty good, if I do say so myself. The grouping on the smallest target isn’t the best I’ve done, but overall, I hit what I’m aiming at.” Ignoring the quip about Robert shooting repo men. Embarrassed that he could not manage money as well as other people. He still wasn’t able to constrain his urges to buy things he couldn’t afford.

“Ah, a prodigy in our midst!” Pete performed a mock bow.

Robert didn’t always know how to handle Pete. So the younger man looked at him with an odd expression.

“You remind me of my son.” A sad smile flickered across Pete’s weathered face. “He was an odd duck, too, always tinkering with machines and dreaming big. He went off to work in the mines when he was a boy. Never saw him again after the collapse.” Pete shrugged, fidgeting with a broken timepiece in his hands.

“Sorry to hear that. How old would he be?”

“About your age, I guess.”

“I bet I would have liked him.”

“I would like to think so, too. You’re both good kids.”

After a brief conversation about Pete being unable to find one of his friends, they exchanged farewells. Robert packed his rifle into his worn bag and exited the street, where he focused on his thoughts and started making his way home.

The sun and planet started to set, and their fading orange light gave the sky a beautiful hue. Robert took in the scenery as he strolled, not paying attention to one of the sleek white hover vans that had become so popular in the past months. It zipped away through the air as he watched before returning to his thoughts on what he would have for dinner.

The building he lived in stood like a weary sentinel at the town’s boundary, a hodgepodge of mismatched bricks and creaking metal that had long ago lost any semblance of architectural grace. Despite its weather-beaten exterior, the residents maintained a veneer of pride, as evidenced by the door with a fresh coat of paint.

Upon entering his small apartment, Robert was greeted by the neutral aroma of cleanliness, not too sterile but not fragrant enough to be noticeable. The scent was as unremarkable as beige. A fragrance that announced, “I am clean and functional, but please don’t expect any frills.”

He lived alone, which was considered a luxury tantamount to owning a solid gold toilet brush. He cherished living alone, deeming it a worthwhile trade-off to sacrifice financial stability for solitude.

His independence was threatened when he received an eviction notification last week. It had been weeks since his rent had been due, and the creditors were no longer in the mood to accept any more late payments. Unless Robert could find a way to earn the money necessary for back-rent and tenancy fees, he would have to pack his belongings and leave his beloved apartment for good.

Robert switched on his computer to search for night jobs but was soon distracted by a video that had popped up. The government shared an informative clip, motivating citizens to be proactive and responsible financially.

Robert recognized a humanoid alien named Damian Krestov, with pale yellow skin and a texture Robert couldn’t place; he didn’t know where the man was from. He almost spoke to Robert as if aware of his situation. Damian spoke about taking responsibility and believing and trusting in yourself when times are demanding because one must never give up hope.

As he spoke, Damian gestured enthusiastically to express himself and emphasize his points. This man believed every word that came from his mouth. After watching out of curiosity, Robert realized that it was all a propaganda video in disguise; he didn’t pay enough attention to understand the actual goal of the ad, but he knew it wasn’t ‘just an ad.’

His green eyes fell on a colored flyer that someone had slipped under his door while he was stretching out his legs. It bore the headline: “Prestigious Shooting Competition on Zorath!” Beneath the flashy text, an illustration portrayed a muscular figure raising a gun in triumph while standing on top of a mountain of defeated foes.

Robert scoffed; he was skeptical of such an over-the-top advertisement, and one delivered on paper door-to-door. Still, a twinge of excitement hit him as he read the details: a grand prize of one million credits and a chance to become a professional shooter, whatever that means. Despite his initial skepticism about the ridiculous flyer, his heart raced at the thought of escaping his less-than-ideal life on Mool, proving his skills, and making enough money to not worry about those debt collectors.

Questions swirled in Robert’s mind, but none could snuff out the flame of hope that had ignited within him. As he crumpled the flyer in his hand, he imagined the look on Pete’s face if he were to win the competition and return to Mool with a million credits and a newfound sense of freedom.

“Who designed this? A five-year-old with a crayon?” Robert scoffed. Yet, despite the ridiculous presentation, he couldn’t ignore the Sub-Lunar Protective Service logo, a shield with ‘SLPS’ stamped in the bottom right corner.

“What is a government agency running a shoot for?” It wasn’t news to Robert that the agency would run events, but it still perplexed him why.

“Alright, Fannec,” he said, attempting to rationalize the situation. “Let’s say this is legit. You’ve spent your whole life shooting targets at the range. You can leave this shit moon and pay off some debts.”

As he weighed the pros and cons, his eyes flicked back to the grand prize: one million credits. With that money, his life could undergo a complete metamorphosis, rescuing him from this decrepit city and launching him into an existence he had only imagined. But was it worth the risk of taking time off work? He was already behind by several weeks’ rent and couldn’t afford time off.

“It’s a risky gamble.” He thought. “But it might be my ticket out of this mess.” He rubbed his temples. “Why couldn’t they have made a normal ad instead of this cartoonish mess? Is this some cruel joke?”

Deep down in his subconscious, he was aware he had already decided. His desire to escape was far more potent than any doubts he might have about the competition’s legitimacy or his abilities.

“Okay,” he said, preparing himself for the decision ahead. “Worst-case scenario, I lose the apartment, and I’m the laughingstock of the city for a while. Best case, I walk away with a million credits, which would pay off all of my debt and buy me a new life somewhere else.”

“Alright, let’s see what kind of mess I’m getting myself into.” Pulling up the competition details on his comm device, he scrolled through the information, his eyebrows furrowing with each new bit of it. “It’s scheduled during storm season on Zorath. Do these event planners even know how to read a weather report?”

The thought of traveling to a distant planet during its tumultuous storm season made Robert’s stomach churn. He had never left Mool before, and while he was confident in his shooting skills, everything else about this trip was uncharted territory.

This kind of shoot requires more than marksmanship. To outsmart his rivals, Robert must think fast and use the landscape and surroundings to gain an advantage. Storms would make that difficult, and Robert didn’t practice a lot of situational shooting. Sniper shooting was his strong suit, which he practiced most.

“At least it’ll be a memorable experience.”

Robert couldn’t shake off his hesitation. His worries extended beyond the storms. He would be up against marksmen who possessed more shooting and life experience. He stopped pacing and stared at his reflection in the window. The city lights of Bethada flickered in the glass, casting a melancholy glow over his face. His eyes were tired but resolute.

The competition didn’t worry him; the entry fee wasn’t refundable. The price was going up soon to encourage more people to register early. He had to decide, and quick.

“I guess if these guys are dumb enough to hold a shooting competition during one of the worst storm seasons in the Confederation, then they’re dumb enough to let me win.”

He chuckled, imagining the event planners huddled over a meteorological terminal, unaware of the impending storm clouds. The United Confederation’s government should have caught such an obvious detail. Perhaps they thought the turbulent weather would excite or challenge the competition. Which would be something that a management or administrative employee would think of.

“Perhaps the storms will scare off some of the competition,” his mind was scrambling with images of seasoned marksmen fleeing in terror from the torrential rains and howling winds. “Yeah, I bet half of ’em will drop out before they even fired the first shot.”

His chest swelled with newfound confidence. Sure, he had never left Mool before, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t hold his own on a strange, stormy planet. After all, he spent countless hours honing his skills at the local shooting range. And he always dreamed of fleeing the drudgery of his dull life in this rundown city on a forgotten moon.

“Alright, enough daydreaming,” he chided himself, shaking off his momentary lapse into fantasy. “Let’s make this official.”

Robert picked up his comm device and navigated to the registration page for the competition. He paused for a moment. The magnitude of the decision he was about to make was massive. He would have to prepare for missing out on some income. Once he registered, there would be no backing out, no second-guessing. The entry fee was substantial, but it would have to be bought on credit, like everything Robert paid for.

With a final deep breath and a surge of determination, Robert tapped the ‘Register’ button on his comm device. A cheerful confirmation message popped up on the screen: “Congratulations! You are now officially registered for the Zorath Shooting Competition!” It was followed by information about equipment checks, times, and locations.

“Well, this will be fun.”

@ 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!

@ 16d11430:61640947

The colonial fiat system—an intricate network of financial, social, and psychological constructs—relies on its ability to manipulate collective behavior, sustain economic dependency, and enforce systemic conformity. For the individual navigating this landscape, the brain becomes both a target and a tool. The question arises: how can the human brain, with its remarkable capacity for autonomy and adaptability, defend itself against the manipulative information siege of such a system? The answer lies in understanding and leveraging the brain's strengths to build defenses, foster resilience, and reclaim personal sovereignty.

---

Understanding the Siege: The Colonial Fiat System's Manipulative Arsenal

The fiat system exerts its control through psychological and informational tactics designed to overwhelm the individual mind:

1. Fear and Uncertainty: Constant narratives of inflation, economic crises, and scarcity exploit the brain’s amygdala, triggering anxiety and compliance.

2. Hyperconsumerism: By hijacking the brain’s reward pathways, the system fosters addiction to materialism, making individuals dependent on endless cycles of consumption.

3. Herd Mentality: Swarm consciousness, driven by social norms and media influence, suppresses critical thinking and reinforces collective conformity.

4. Short-Term Thinking: The system capitalizes on impulsive decision-making, eroding long-term planning and independence.

To resist these tactics, the individual brain must become a fortress—fortified by critical thought, emotional regulation, and intentional living.

---

Fortifying the Mind: Strategies for Resilience

1. Cultivate Cognitive Autonomy

At the heart of resistance lies the brain’s ability to think independently. By engaging the prefrontal cortex—the seat of logic, reasoning, and decision-making—individuals can reclaim their mental autonomy.

Question Narratives: Evaluate the motives behind information presented by media, corporations, and governments. Ask: Who benefits from this message?

Strengthen Critical Thinking: Regularly challenge your own assumptions and seek out diverse perspectives to avoid echo chambers.

Learn the System: Understand how the fiat system functions, from its reliance on inflationary policies to its ties to debt-based economies. Knowledge dismantles manipulation.

1. Master Emotional Regulation

The colonial fiat system thrives on fear, uncertainty, and the dopamine-driven cycles of consumerism. Emotional regulation shields the brain from these manipulative forces.

Practice Mindfulness: Techniques such as meditation and deep breathing calm the amygdala, reducing reactivity to fear-based propaganda.

Delay Gratification: Strengthen your ability to prioritize long-term rewards over impulsive consumption, engaging the brain’s executive functions.

Build Emotional Awareness: Recognize when your emotions are being manipulated, whether through scarcity marketing or fearmongering headlines.

1. Rewire Reward Systems

The brain’s reward pathways, driven by dopamine, are a primary target of the fiat system’s consumerist messaging. Reclaim control by redefining what brings you fulfillment.

Seek Intrinsic Rewards: Shift focus from material possessions to meaningful activities, such as learning, creating, and connecting with others.

Limit Exposure: Reduce consumption of advertising and social media, which are designed to exploit your reward circuits.

Adopt Sound Money Principles: Embrace financial practices that align with long-term stability, such as saving in Bitcoin or other deflationary assets.

---

Adaptability: The Key to Outwitting the System

1. Harness Neuroplasticity

The human brain’s neuroplasticity—its ability to rewire and adapt—offers a powerful tool for resisting the system’s influence.

Unlearn Dependency: Challenge habits and beliefs that tie your self-worth to fiat-driven success metrics, such as status symbols or debt-financed lifestyles.

Learn Decentralization: Educate yourself on alternatives to fiat systems, such as Bitcoin, decentralized finance, and peer-to-peer economies.

Adopt Resilient Skills: Develop capabilities that enhance your independence, such as critical financial literacy, coding, or permaculture.

1. Reclaim Time and Focus

The fiat system thrives on distraction, keeping individuals too overwhelmed to question its constructs. Reclaiming focus is an act of rebellion.

Set Boundaries: Allocate time for deep work and personal growth, free from the constant noise of digital media.

Practice Digital Minimalism: Use technology intentionally, ensuring it serves your goals rather than consuming your attention.

Value Rest: Recognize that productivity is not your sole measure of worth. Rest and reflection strengthen your cognitive resilience.

---

A Community of Sovereignty: The Collective Defense

While the individual brain is formidable, collective resistance amplifies its power. The social brain network enables connection with others who share a vision of autonomy and decentralization.

Build Like-Minded Networks: Engage with communities that value critical thinking, self-reliance, and alternative systems.

Share Knowledge: Spread awareness of the manipulative mechanisms of the fiat system, empowering others to resist.

Collaborate on Solutions: From supporting decentralized technologies to creating resilient local economies, collective action dismantles dependency.

---

Finding Anchors: Philosophy, Purpose, and Meaning

The brain’s capacity for self-reflection and existential thought provides a deep well of strength. By anchoring your life to principles and purpose, you can resist the shallow incentives of fiat-driven systems.

Explore Philosophical Anchors: Ideas such as sound money, personal sovereignty, and ethical living provide a framework for resistance.

Seek Transcendence: Practices like spirituality, art, and nature connection foster a sense of purpose beyond materialism.

Define Success on Your Terms: Reject fiat-driven definitions of success, focusing instead on values like freedom, creativity, and meaningful relationships.

---

Conclusion: The Brain as a Bastion of Sovereignty

The colonial fiat system’s manipulative siege is formidable, but the human brain is a far greater force. Through critical thinking, emotional regulation, adaptability, and purpose, the brain has the power to resist the swarm consciousness that perpetuates systemic dependency. By building mental fortresses, individuals can reclaim their autonomy, foster resilience, and pave the way for a decentralized, self-sovereign future.

The battle for freedom begins not in institutions but within the neural networks of the individual brain. Each mind fortified against manipulation is a victory for personal sovereignty—and a step toward a world where human potential thrives beyond the shadow of fiat control.

@ 467a12eb:997fcc22

This is my test document for nostr publish

Although Sainsbury's was already in the midst of a plan to save £1bn over the next few years, the rise in employer's National Insurance contributions set out in the Budget has also been a factor in this latest restructuring plan.

Add some text

@ 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：

@ 378562cd:a6fc6773

Top 20 U.S. Headlines:

1. Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive OrderA federal judge has temporarily halted President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, citing constitutional concerns under the 14th Amendment. This decision marks a significant legal challenge to the administration's immigration policy.

2. U.S. Withdraws from Global Tax AgreementThe United States has officially withdrawn from a global tax deal negotiated at the OECD, which sought to implement a global minimum tax and ensure multinational companies pay fair taxes where they operate. This move signals a potential shift towards a tax war, with considerations to double taxes on foreign companies as a retaliatory measure.

3. Chancellor Rachel Reeves Backs Heathrow ExpansionChancellor Rachel Reeves has expressed support for the long-debated Heathrow Airport expansion, citing economic growth and job creation. However, the project faces resistance from environmental groups and within her party, highlighting concerns over environmental impacts and carbon emissions.

4. Former Politico Reporters Criticize Editorial Decisions on Hunter Biden StoriesEx-Politico reporters Tara Palmeri and Marc Caputo have criticized their former editors for allegedly suppressing significant stories about Hunter Biden's laptop and related issues before the 2020 election, contributing to a narrative of misinformation. Politico has defended its editorial standards and commitment to accuracy.

5. Skepticism Surrounds 'Drill, Baby, Drill' PlanU.S. shale industry leaders have expressed skepticism about President Trump's plan to significantly boost oil production to combat inflation, emphasizing that financial motivations drive decisions rather than political agendas. Despite pressure on OPEC and Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices, low prices could harm U.S. shale profitability, with growth expected to slow.

6. Chicago Bears Appoint Ben Johnson as Head CoachThe Chicago Bears have appointed Ben Johnson as their new head coach, offering a substantial salary of $13 million per year, making him the seventh-highest-paid NFL coach. Despite having no head coaching experience, Johnson's tenure as the Detroit Lions' offensive coordinator saw significant improvements in the team's offense.

7. Southport Attack Aftermath: Addressing Myths and MisinformationFollowing last summer's Southport attack, where three young girls were murdered, authorities are confronting far-right riots and disinformation that ensued. The attacker, Axel Rudakubana, pleaded guilty, and investigations revealed extremist materials in his home. The incident has prompted discussions on effective public communication to dispel harmful disinformation.

8. Southern California Wildfires Force Mass EvacuationsA new explosive wildfire has erupted near Los Angeles, rapidly expanding to over 10,000 acres and forcing mass evacuations. Firefighters are battling to maintain control amid challenging conditions.

9. Historic Snowstorm Paralyzes Parts of the Southern U.S.A record-breaking snowstorm has swept across the southern United States, paralyzing regions unaccustomed to such weather. The storm has led to significant disruptions, including road closures and power outages.

10. President Trump Deploys 1,500 Troops to Southern BorderIn a move to bolster border security, President Trump has ordered the deployment of 1,500 active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. This action aligns with his administration's recent executive orders on immigration enforcement.

11. Trump Administration Reviewing Automatic Emergency Braking RuleThe U.S. auto safety agency is reconsidering a landmark rule from the previous administration that required nearly all new cars and trucks by 2029 to have advanced automatic emergency braking systems.

12. Lawmakers Seek Sanctions Over Hong Kong Human Rights ViolationsBipartisan U.S. lawmakers are introducing a bill requiring the Trump administration to review whether Hong Kong officials should be sanctioned for human rights violations.

13. International Criminal Court Prepares for Possible U.S. SanctionsThe International Criminal Court has taken measures to shield staff from potential U.S. sanctions, including paying salaries three months in advance, as it braces for financial restrictions that could impact the tribunal's operations.

14. Brianna 'Chickenfry' LaPaglia Reflects on Sexuality Post-BreakupFollowing a tumultuous breakup with country singer Zach Bryan, Brianna LaPaglia, known as "Chickenfry," speculates about her dating preferences, expressing disinterest in having a boyfriend and considering dating women.

15. NATO Chief Warns of Costly Impact if Russia Wins Over UkraineNATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has warned that a Russian victory over Ukraine would undermine the alliance's credibility and could cost trillions of dollars to restore its deterrent power.

16. U.S. Border Patrol Agent Fatally Shot in VermontAuthorities report that a U.S. Border Patrol agent has been fatally shot in northern Vermont. The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security stated that the agent was killed in the line of duty.

17. MLK Day Observance Highlights Warning Against Anti-Woke RhetoricMartin Luther King Jr. Day celebrations at King's former congregation in Atlanta featured a 70-member choir and remarks from his youngest daughter, warning against anti-woke rhetoric.

18. Biden Pardons Fauci, Milley, and Jan. 6 Panel MembersPresident Joe Biden has pardoned individuals including Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and members of the Jan. 6 committee, as a guard against potential 'revenge' by former President Trump.

19. Bitter Cold Spreads Across Much of the U.S.Frigid temperatures are engulfing Texas and other parts of the South ahead of a rare winter storm expected to bring heavy snow and disruptive ice accumulations to the region.

20. President Trump Grants Sweeping Pardon of Jan. 6 Defendants\ Former President Trump has issued pardons to multiple individuals convicted of crimes related to the January 6th Capitol breach, framing the move as a commitment to "justice for patriots." This decision has sparked sharp debates across political lines.

    ---

    Top 5 Worldwide Headlines:

    1. Tensions Escalate Between Russia and NATO Over Ukraine\ Russia has ramped up its military offensive in Ukraine, with NATO allies pledging additional support, including advanced weaponry, to Kyiv. The conflict continues to reshape European geopolitics.

    2. Global Markets React to China's Economic Data\ Slower-than-expected economic growth in China has sent ripples through global markets, raising concerns about the potential impact on global trade and supply chains.

    3. Massive Earthquake Strikes Turkey and Syria\ A devastating earthquake has rocked parts of Turkey and Syria, resulting in significant casualties and widespread destruction. International relief efforts are underway.

    4. United Nations Calls for Immediate Action on Climate Crisis\ A new UN report highlights the urgent need for global cooperation to combat the accelerating effects of climate change, including rising sea levels and extreme weather patterns.

    5. Protests Erupt in France Over Pension Reform Plans\ Large-scale protests have broken out across France in response to the government’s proposal to raise the retirement age, with unions organizing nationwide strikes.

@ 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

@ 1cb14ab3:95d52462

Tree branches. 4' x 4 [Castle Pines, USA. 2016]

Introduction

Sanctuary offers a layered view of resilience, juxtaposing the green expanses of the Sanctuary Golf Course with the majesty of Pikes Peak and the scars of past destruction. Framed by the lens, this work explores the tension between human intervention and nature’s cycles of renewal.

Site & Placement

Perched at Daniels Park in Castle Pines, the lens focuses on the rolling terrain of the golf course, leading the eye to the distant peak. The surrounding brush, which once burned in a major fire, adds depth to the narrative of renewal. A bench, positioned for an unobstructed view, invites visitors to sit and reflect on the land’s capacity to heal and endure.

Impermanence & Integration

As an ephemeral installation, Sanctuary embodies nature’s cycles of destruction and rebirth. The materials—branches and rock—will eventually decay and return to the earth, a process that mirrors the recovery of the landscape itself after fire. This impermanence underscores the delicate balance between human influence and natural forces.

Reflection

Sanctuary serves as a reminder of both the fragility and resilience of the world around us. It invites viewers to pause and consider the interplay of destruction and growth, human and natural, as they gaze upon a scene shaped by both time and transformation

---

Photos

---

More from the 'Earth Lens' Series:

Earth Lens Series: Artist Statement + List of Works

"Looking Glass" (Earth Lens 001)

"Folsom" (Earth Lens 002)

COMING SOON: "Platte" (Earth Lens 004)

COMING SOON: "Grandfather" (Earth Lens 005)

COMING SOON: "Chongming" (Earth Lens 006)

---

More from Hes

Portfolio

Online Store

Artist Statements

Travel Guides

Photography

Writings

---

All images are credit of Hes, but you are free to download and use for any purpose. If you find joy from my art, please feel free to send a zap. Enjoy life on a Bitcoin standard.

@ 9c9e774c:491c6c5b

In today's competitive legal landscape, establishing a strong, trusted reputation is essential for any legal professional or firm. This includes experts such as engineering expert witnesses, as well as law firms themselves. Brand reputation management (BRM) plays a crucial role in shaping how these professionals are perceived by clients, peers, and the public at large. Here’s how both expert witnesses and law firms can effectively use brand reputation management and email marketing to boost their visibility, trustworthiness, and ultimately their success.

Brand Reputation Management for Engineering Expert Witnesses

An engineering expert witness plays a critical role in many legal cases, providing specialized knowledge and testimony that can make or break a case. Because of the high level of expertise and authority required in this role, managing one's reputation is paramount.

Showcasing Expertise: Engineering expert witnesses can use content marketing, such as articles, case studies, or whitepapers, to showcase their in-depth knowledge. By writing about real-world applications of engineering principles in legal cases or discussing trends in the industry, they can position themselves as trusted thought leaders in their field.

Online Reviews and Testimonials: Potential clients—lawyers, law firms, or even direct clients—often rely on the experiences of others to gauge the credibility of an expert witness. Encouraging satisfied clients to leave positive reviews on professional networks like LinkedIn, Google, or specific legal platforms can enhance an expert’s online presence.

Public Speaking and Thought Leadership: Engineering experts can enhance their reputation by speaking at industry conferences or offering insights through webinars. These activities not only allow them to showcase their expertise but also increase their visibility among lawyers who may be seeking an expert witness.

Managing Negative Press: In any profession, negative feedback or a challenging case outcome is inevitable. However, effective reputation management involves addressing criticism professionally and transparently. Engineering experts can use their website or social media platforms to provide clarifications, correct inaccuracies, or demonstrate how they have learned and evolved from particular experiences.

Brand Reputation Management for Law Firms

For law firms, brand reputation management extends beyond individual cases and expert witnesses. It encompasses the firm’s overall image, which can influence the perception of both current clients and potential clients. Client Testimonials and Case Results: Positive feedback from clients can significantly enhance a law firm's reputation. Gathering testimonials or showcasing successful case outcomes (while adhering to legal ethical standards) on the firm’s website or social media can help build credibility and attract new clients.

Active Social Media Presence: Law firms should be active on professional platforms such as LinkedIn, as well as on other social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook. Engaging content, including firm achievements, community involvement, and legal insights, helps to humanize the firm and build a connection with potential clients. Regular posts, along with interactions with followers, demonstrate transparency and accessibility.

Thought Leadership and Content Creation: Publishing blog posts, articles, and industry insights is a great way for law firms to stay at the forefront of the legal community. Sharing knowledge on current legal topics, trends, or emerging areas of law helps establish the firm as a credible source of information and positions attorneys as experts in their fields.

Crisis Management: Sometimes, a firm’s reputation may come under fire due to a high-profile case or a client’s negative experience. Effective brand reputation management involves a well-thought-out crisis communication strategy. Being responsive, addressing concerns publicly, and taking corrective actions when necessary is key to maintaining trust.

How Law Firms Can Use Email Marketing for Brand Building

Email marketing for law firms is a powerful tool to keep their brand top-of-mind with clients, leads, and the broader legal community. Here’s how email marketing can fit into a law firm’s reputation management strategy: Nurturing Leads and Building Relationships: Email newsletters allow law firms to stay connected with leads over time. By offering valuable legal insights, case updates, or industry news, law firms can nurture relationships and remain the go-to resource for potential clients. Educational emails help foster trust and demonstrate the firm’s expertise.

Client Retention: After a client has been through a legal process, it’s essential to keep in touch for future needs or referrals. Personalized follow-up emails post-case or periodic newsletters with updates on the firm’s services, achievements, or relevant legal news can remind past clients of the firm’s value.

Client Testimonials and Case Studies: Law firms can strategically use email marketing to share success stories, case studies, or client testimonials. This not only showcases their expertise but also builds social proof, which is crucial for brand reputation. Featuring clients' positive experiences can influence potential clients' decisions when they are looking for legal representation.

Transparency and Communication: Email marketing helps law firms maintain transparent and open lines of communication. Whether sharing updates on legal proceedings, providing educational content, or sending reminders for consultations, emails allow for consistent engagement, which can build trust with clients.

SEO and Lead Generation: Emails that contain valuable content and include strong calls to action (CTAs) can drive traffic to the firm’s website, potentially converting leads into clients. Offering downloadable guides, legal checklists, or consultation discounts in email campaigns can incentivize recipients to take action.

Segmented Email Lists: A well-segmented email list is key to delivering the right message to the right audience. Law firms can categorize their contacts based on factors such as practice area, client status, or geographical location, enabling them to send highly relevant and personalized communications.

Conclusion

For both engineering expert witnesses and law firms, managing and cultivating a strong brand reputation is essential to building trust, attracting clients, and standing out in a crowded field. Engineering experts can use brand reputation management strategies like showcasing expertise and handling online reviews to cement their credibility. Law firms, on the other hand, can leverage content creation, client testimonials, and social media presence to boost their brand visibility. Email marketing plays a pivotal role in keeping clients informed, building relationships, and strengthening a firm’s reputation. When used effectively, email marketing can not only help retain clients but also generate leads, ensuring that law firms stay at the forefront of clients’ minds when legal needs arise. By embracing these brand reputation management tactics, both individual experts and law firms can ensure sustained success and a robust professional image.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

This week flew by and we're already getting ready for another episode. Which reminds me that I need to get a couple more clips out.

Territory Stuff

• We had a winner in the CFP pool
• I'm continuing to flounder in the Cricket contests
• The UEFA contest is back
• And, of course, Team USA notched another victory

NFL News

• Conference Championships
• Are the Lions doomed?
• Is Jayden Daniels the best rookie we've ever seen?
• GOTW Ravens vs Bills: MVP vs OPOY why they're different awards
• Sports betting vs bad officiating

NBA News

• Trade talk
• New All Star Game format
• Joker and SGA appreciation

Golf

• What's this new TGL thing and why is it lame?

Hockey

• Ovi update
• Canadian teams are killing it this season

Plus, anything you want us to talk about (that we remember while recording).

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/862280

@ 16d11430:61640947

The entanglement of fiat currency, racial hierarchies, and colonialism is not merely a historical artifact but a systemic force that continues to shape the modern world. While colonialism has shifted from overt territorial domination to more subtle forms of economic and ideological control, its foundations remain deeply rooted in racialized exploitation and fiat-based financial systems. This article explores how fiat currency has historically been a tool of colonial power, how race has been weaponized to justify and sustain economic hierarchies, and how these forces persist in contemporary global structures.

---

The Role of Fiat in Colonial Domination

Fiat currency—money without intrinsic value, issued by centralized authorities—played a pivotal role in enabling colonial powers to exert control over colonized territories. By dismantling indigenous systems of trade and imposing fiat-based economies, colonizers centralized power, creating a structural dependence that persists to this day.

1. Monetary Imposition and Disruption: Colonial administrations replaced local barter systems and commodity currencies with fiat systems, compelling indigenous populations to use colonial currencies for taxes, goods, and services. This enforced participation in a colonial economic order undermined self-sufficient local economies. For example, the British introduction of the rupee in India dismantled complex indigenous trade networks, forcing economic realignment under colonial terms.

2. Taxation and Forced Labor: Fiat systems were weaponized to coerce colonized populations into labor. Taxes, often payable only in colonial currency, forced people to work within colonial enterprises to earn the money required. This dependency reinforced economic subjugation.

3. Inflation as Extraction: By manipulating fiat currency supplies, colonial powers extracted wealth from colonies. Printing excess money devalued local economies while enriching colonial elites. This strategy was less visible but equally exploitative compared to direct resource extraction.

---

Race as an Economic Justification

While fiat systems provided the mechanisms of economic control, racial ideologies provided the moral and political justification for colonial domination. Race became a lens through which economic inequality was normalized, rationalizing the exploitation of non-European populations.

1. Racialized Labor Exploitation: Under colonialism, racial hierarchies determined access to wealth and opportunities. Indigenous and enslaved peoples were systematically underpaid or unpaid, while Europeans occupied privileged economic positions. Racial ideologies framed these disparities as natural or deserved.

2. The Commodification of Racialized Bodies: Fiat systems also underpinned the commodification of human lives during slavery. Loans, bonds, and other financial instruments were issued based on the value of enslaved people, reducing human beings to economic units within racialized systems of extraction.

3. The Devaluation of Indigenous Economies: Indigenous systems of wealth and exchange were not merely disrupted but devalued, portrayed as primitive or inefficient compared to fiat-based systems. This cultural erasure further entrenched economic hierarchies tied to race.

---

Fiat Colonialism’s Modern Legacy

The relationship between fiat and racialized economic control persists in the global financial architecture:

1. Structural Dependence: Many post-colonial nations remain reliant on currencies introduced during colonial rule or tied to foreign powers. For example, the CFA franc in West Africa still links former French colonies to the French treasury, perpetuating neo-colonial dependency.

2. Global Financial Institutions: Organizations like the IMF and World Bank, operating within fiat systems, impose structural adjustment policies on Global South nations. These policies prioritize debt repayment to wealthy nations, often at the expense of local development. The racialized logic of colonialism reappears in these economic relationships, where predominantly non-European nations bear the brunt of austerity measures.

3. Racialized Access to Capital: In modern fiat economies, access to credit and capital is often disproportionately restricted for marginalized racial groups. This reinforces historical inequities rooted in colonial systems of economic exclusion.

---

Ideological Colonialism Through Fiat

Fiat currency is not merely a tool of economic exchange but a vehicle for ideological dominance. The imposition of Western fiat systems during colonialism also imposed Western economic values, undermining indigenous worldviews and institutionalizing a global hierarchy that remains intact today.

Monetary Sovereignty: By denying colonized nations the right to issue their own currencies, colonial powers stripped them of economic sovereignty. Today, this legacy continues as many nations remain economically constrained by foreign-controlled fiat systems.

Cultural Hegemony: Fiat systems have been a means of propagating cultural imperialism. Indigenous concepts of value and exchange, which often prioritized communal well-being over profit, were replaced by extractive models tied to fiat economies.

---

A Decolonial Perspective: Bitcoin and Alternatives

In the face of these enduring systems, decentralized financial systems like Bitcoin present a potential challenge to the colonial logic embedded in fiat systems:

1. Decentralized Sovereignty: Bitcoin operates independently of centralized authorities, offering nations and individuals the opportunity to bypass fiat dependencies. This could empower post-colonial states to reclaim economic autonomy.

2. Neutrality and Accessibility: Unlike fiat systems, which often reflect and reinforce racial and geopolitical hierarchies, Bitcoin is borderless and non-discriminatory, creating opportunities for marginalized groups to access capital and build wealth.

3. Transparency and Accountability: Blockchain technology ensures transparency, reducing the opacity that has historically allowed global financial institutions to exploit vulnerable nations through predatory practices.

---

Conclusion

The historical entanglement of fiat currency, race, and colonialism reveals how economic systems have been designed to sustain power imbalances. While colonialism has shifted in form—from direct rule to economic and ideological control—the core principles remain intact, with fiat currency serving as a critical mechanism for perpetuating these hierarchies.

Decolonizing the global economy requires dismantling these systems, recognizing their racialized foundations, and exploring alternatives that prioritize equity and autonomy. Bitcoin and decentralized technologies offer a potential pathway, though their success depends on a broader commitment to addressing the structural inequalities that fiat-based colonialism has left in its wake.

This is not just an economic imperative but a moral one: to imagine and build a world no longer bound by the exploitative legacies of fiat and race.

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

Der klaren, frischen Wahrnehmung der Welt, deren Teil wir sind, stehen vier Schleier im Weg.

Der Schleier der WERTUNG: Getrennt werden Dinge die Lust/Gefallen versprechen - von Dingen, die Unlust und Antipathie erzeugen. Letztere werden unterdrückt.

Der Schleier der BENENNUNG: Getrennt werden Dinge, für die wir Namen und Begriffe kennen – von Dingen die wir nicht benennen können. Letztere werden unterdrückt.

Der Schleier von ERZIEHUNG und AUSBILDUNG: Getrennt werden Dinge, für die uns Regeln und Konventionen vorliegen - von Dingen, die nicht geregelt sind, etwa Visionen und Träume.  Letztere werden unterdrückt.

Der Schleier der EGO-ORIENTIERUNG: Getrennt werden Dinge, die für unser „ich“ bedeutsam scheinen – von Dingen, die als „nicht-ich“ eingeordnet werden. Letztere werden unterdrückt.

Jeder Mensch verfügt über das Potential, diese Schleier auszuräumen: Spirituelles Potential.

Das gemeinsame Ziel der spirituellen Traditionen der Menschheit besteht darin, durch transpersonale/religiöse Entwicklung, ggf. unterstützt durch Meditation, diese Schleier bewußt zu machen - um sie dann zu entfernen. Das Ergebnis dieses Prozesses wird in verschiedenen Traditionen unterschiedlich benannt, etwa ERLEUCHTUNG, NIRWANA, SATORI.

Das Bestreben, unser spirituelles Potential zu nutzen und diesen Weg zu begehen, wird in der gegenwärtigen Industriegesellschaft nicht gefördert, da klare Menschen sich nicht für fremde Interessen manipulieren und instrumentalisieren lassen. Klare Menschen lassen sich nicht als Soldaten oder Sklaven missbrauchen.

Wollen wir eine zukunftsfähige Gesellschaft, scheint die Entfaltung der spirituellen Potentiale bei einer kritischen Anzahl von Menschen unabdingbar. Wir brauchen den klaren Blick dafür, dass die gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen nicht zukunftsfähig sind, sondern in einer Sackgasse enden – und dass es Alternativen gibt.

Zum Stärken dieser Potentiale kann man sich an verschiedenen Stufenmodellen orientieren, etwa:

Die fünf Ebenen des transpersonalen Bewusstseins nach Sri Aurobindo und Ken Wilber

o   Höherer Geist: Erfassen des Ganzen mit einem Blick

o   Erleuchteter Geist: geflutetes Bewusstsein, Kreativität

o   Intuitiver Geist: Erleben einer permanenten Einheit

o   Overmind: kosmische Wonne, universelle Liebe

o   Supramental: kontinuierliches non-duales Erfassen der Wirkichkeit

Die vier Ebenen des integralen Bewusstseins nach Jean Gebser

o   No time – only present time

o   Transzendieren des RaumZeit Erlebens

o   Nonduale Erfahrung, offenes Gewahrsein, SATORI

o   Transparenz des Geistes, NIRWANA, Verschwinden von Begehren, loslassen des Haftens am Ego

Acht Jhanische Versenkungsstadien, beschrieben bei Markus Klische

o   Innere Tiefe

o   Versiegen des mentalen Schwingens

o   Erfahrungsstrom von Aussen nach Innen

o   Kraft des Gleichmutes

o   Gewahrsein von endlosem Raum

o   Realität wird nicht länger "dinghaft" erlebt

o   Auftrennung Objekt – Subjekt verschwindet

o   Weder Wahrnehmung noch Nicht-Wahrnehmung

Drei Phasen der Meditation nach Harald Walach

o   Ausblick: Atemmeditation stärkt Aufmerksamkeit nach Innen

o   Einblick: Achtsamkeit, nicht wertendes Verweilen beim Strom der Geschehnisse

o   Tiefblick: neue Wirklichkeitsbereiche werden spürbar. Kensho-Licht, Satori, Verbundenheit, Mitgefühl 

Sollten diese Überlegungen bei Ihnen anklingen und Sie mögen gleich anfangen, etwas zu tun, um den Kontakt mit dem Seelischen zu stärken und das Göttliche in uns stärker zum Klingen zu bringen: Schalten Sie alle Informationsquellen ab, welchen Sie nicht recht trauen. Wer das Gift von Propaganda stoppt und die gewonnene Zeit und Energie für die Wahrnehmung der Dinge und Ereignisse im realen Hier und Jetzt nutzt, hat den ersten und heute vielleicht wichtigsten Schritt auf dem Weg zur klaren und frischen Wahrnehmung der Welt bereits getan. Selber schauen, denken, fühlen - und sich vielleicht noch die Sinnfrage von Victor Frankl stellen:

WAS ERWARTET DIE WELT VON MIR?

Dann wird unser Weg in die Regionalgesellschaft frei.

Details zur Potentialentfaltung in der Regionalgesellschaft finden Sie hier.

@ 1cb14ab3:95d52462

Tree branches, Rock. 4' x 4 [Boulder, USA. 2016]

Introduction

From atop Flagstaff Mountain, Folsom frames Boulder’s iconic Folsom Field, a symbol of youth, learning, and community. This lens offers a moment of reflection on the brevity of the college experience and the transient nature of life, inviting viewers to connect with the campus and its fleeting but impactful moments.

Site & Placement

The lens is strategically placed to frame the stadium, blending the vibrant life of the campus with Boulder’s vast and enduring natural landscape. The bench, situated 6 feet from the lens, offers a space to sit and contemplate the juxtaposition of permanence and change, of structure and wilderness.

Impermanence & Integration

Constructed from branches and rock, Folsom is designed to fade into the mountain landscape after only a short time. Its impermanence echoes the fleeting nature of the college years, reminding viewers that growth and transformation are rooted in moments that pass all too quickly.

Reflection

Through its brief presence, Folsom captures the delicate interplay between human experiences and the enduring landscapes that frame them. It invites viewers to celebrate the vibrant present while acknowledging the inevitability of change.

---

Photos

---

More from the 'Earth Lens' Series:

Earth Lens Series: Artist Statement + List of Works

"Looking Glass" (Earth Lens 001)

COMING SOON: "Sanctuary" (Earth Lens 003)

COMING SOON: "Platte" (Earth Lens 004)

COMING SOON: "Grandfather" (Earth Lens 005)

COMING SOON: "Chongming" (Earth Lens 006)

---

More from Hes

Portfolio

Online Store

Artist Statements

Travel Guides

Photography

Writings

---

All images are credit of Hes, but you are free to download and use for any purpose. If you find joy from my art, please feel free to send a zap. Enjoy life on a Bitcoin standard.

@ 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

@ bd32f268:22b33966

Vivemos num tempo em que predomina a atitude de colocar a vida em serviço de culto ao “Eu”. Aqui por “Eu” entenda-se o ego e as suas manifestações que colocam o indivíduo no centro do seu mundo. Esta priorização do “Eu” revela-se de várias formas, dando á luz vários produtos sociais e culturais. Estas manifestações atuam de forma nociva na sociedade uma vez que desagregam e extinguem todo o tipo coesão social.

Uma sociedade é uma organização de pessoas que buscam uma finalidade comum. Quando a finalidade é primeiramente o serviço aos apetites individuais é cada vez mais provável que surjam conflitos de interesses e estes vão desunindo as pessoas. Desta forma a sociedade precipita-se para o declínio e consequente extinção, uma vez que já não é capaz de sustentar os seus princípios fundadores e a narrativa agregadora que estabelece a identidade da comunidade.

Pensemos numa família, quando os membros da família vivem para si e não para o outro, aqui personificado no esposo e nos filhos, a coesão familiar sai enfraquecida pois muitas serão as ocasiões nas quais os interesses imediatos do indivíduo colidem com os interesses da família. Isto leva a uma série de problemas, nomeadamente os que observamos cada vez mais na educação das crianças. Neste campo, observamos frequentemente um tempo escasso para o convívio e para a pedagogia de vida que os pais devem exercer. Dir-se-á que são as vicissitudes do mundo do trabalho, mas talvez devêssemos balancear essa ideia com a noção de que o materialismo também nos foi habituando a ter outras necessidades que os nossos avós não tinham, o que nos precipita a querer mais e a trabalhar mais e sobretudo fora de casa. Quero dizer que de facto podemos viver com menos e que esse menos no ponto de vista das condições materiais de vida pode significar mais em termos familiares.

Um outro campo em que se nota a primazia do “Eu” é nos relacionamentos em que nos habituamos a ver o outro como um servidor da nossa vontade e do nosso desejo. Confundimos facilmente o conceito de amor com uma troca comercial. Julgamos que aquilo que entregamos tem de ser retribuído, perdendo a noção de que é a nossa escolha entregar-nos a alguém e que como tal temos de enfrentar as consequências da nossa decisão. Nós devemos servir o outro assim como o outro deveria pensar da mesma forma, no entanto não controlamos a cabeça da outra pessoa portanto foquemo-nos sim naquilo que controlamos. Foquemo-nos em honrar as promessas que fazemos e aprender a viver em união com o outro.

Narciso - Caravaggio

Também no cuidado com os idosos se manifesta a primazia do “Eu”. Não são raros os casos de abandono e negligência para com aqueles a quem, para o bem e para o mal, devemos a nossa vida. Vemos cada vez mais idosos institucionalizados quando muitos poderiam estar com as suas respetivas famílias num ambiente familiar muito mais propício para o seu final de vida. As justificações multiplicam-se e novamente o trabalho surge como o fundamento, no entanto facilmente observamos que mesmo quando há tempo esse tempo não é dedicado aos idosos.

A taxa de natalidade é também um sinal da primazia do eu. A retórica pos-contemporânea assegura que ter filhos é um comportamento egoísta, especialmente nos tempos que vivemos. Seja por causa da narrativa climática, seja por questões de pobreza ou doença, essas pessoas defendem a não vida. No entanto, um olhar que guarda o apreço pela vida como algo sagrado é capaz de observar que a vida, mesmo em circunstâncias muito difíceis continua a valer a pena. O verdadeiro motivo que se esconde muitas vezes por trás desta retórica é invariavelmente a primazia do conforto.

Por trás destas opções de vida está também patente um abandono á cultura do sacrifício, que pressupõe a procura de algo que transcende o “Eu”. Nessa transcendência está a chave para encontrar um propósito, isto é uma missão para a vida. Além disso, está também a constatação de que na vida há aspirações e valores mais elevados que nos convocam a entregar a nossa vida, quer isto dizer abrir mão da procura do conforto e do prazer e abraçar por vezes o sofrimento, no entanto este sofrimento tem um propósito. O sacrifício individual não é seguramente a via mais fácil e conveniente, contudo é a única pois o viver para o ego é apenas uma ilusão. Quem vive para si, nem para si vive dado que não ama ninguém além de si próprio e isso não é amor.

@ d9cfbbde:e7cfd9fd

Testing if this can be edited after publishing...

@ 16d11430:61640947

In the world of fiat, bosses are no longer mere professionals managing resources and people. They are, in essence, Big Brother's appointed handlers, glorified totems of obedience whose primary role is to ensure the herd stays docile, compliant, and tethered to their assigned hamster wheels. They don’t just manage; they surveil. With Orwellian precision, their every motivational email, team-building exercise, and performance review is an insidious mechanism for upholding the grand illusion of "freedom within structure."

These citizen-handlers come cloaked in titles like "team leader" or "manager," but their true mandate is far more sinister. Their KPIs aren’t just productivity or revenue—it’s compliance. It’s ensuring that no one questions why a third of their paycheck evaporates into the shadowy depths of taxes and inflation, why corporate policies look more like legislation, or why time—the only non-renewable resource—is spent propping up systems designed to ensure it is wasted.

Their tools? The carrot and the stick, but reinvented for the modern serfdom. The carrot is a pay raise that barely outpaces inflation, a shiny "employee of the month" badge that says, "You’re a good hamster!" The stick? Passive-aggressive emails, whispered conversations about "alignment with company values," and the ever-present specter of "budget cuts," a euphemism for your expendability in the machinery.

Dark satire requires pointing out the absurdities they enforce with a straight face: They orchestrate pointless Zoom meetings that siphon hours of productivity but demand employees "turn on their cameras" as proof of existence. They impose performance reviews steeped in doublespeak, where "areas of improvement" mean "You’re not docile enough," and "leadership potential" is code for "You’re great at mirroring propaganda."

Their allegiance is not to you, nor even to the company. It’s to the system that birthed them—a system that thrives on mediocrity, rewards complicity, and punishes dissent. The fiat boss isn’t a mentor; they’re a handler armed with spreadsheets, PowerPoints, and policies designed to turn independent thought into a liability. They are the human interface of a system that cannot tolerate deviation, individuality, or questions like, "Why are we doing this in the first place?"

In their world, promotions aren’t about merit but about trust—trust that you will perpetuate the cycle without asking too many questions. "You’re like family here," they say, but families don’t dock your pay for being late. "We value innovation," they claim, while shackling creativity with bureaucratic hurdles. "We care about work-life balance," they insist, while quietly monitoring your Slack activity at 11 PM.

Ultimately, the fiat boss-handler is a tragic figure in this dark satire, a cog who believes they’re the engine, a shepherd who thinks they’re free while they guide the sheep. They are the unwitting enforcers of a dystopia where freedom is rationed, individuality is commodified, and dissent is erased—not by decree, but by performance improvement plans.

@ d4eaddd4:5ce9da9c

("Shipwreck off Nantucket" William Bradford, ca. 1860–61)

What Does It Mean That Grief Comes in Waves?
Grief is often compared to waves—a natural, unpredictable rhythm that surges and recedes, catching us off guard and sweeping us into a sea of emotions. Just like the ocean, grief can be calm one moment and tumultuous the next, leaving us gasping for air. This metaphor resonates deeply because it reflects the enduring, nonlinear nature of loss. Whether your loss occurred recently or years ago, grief remains a lifelong journey, ebbing and flowing with time.

Why Grief Feels Like Waves
At its core, grief is the emotional response to loss, and it doesn’t follow a set timetable. Emotions can be triggered unexpectedly by a song, a scent, or a special date, sending a wave of sorrow crashing over you. Author Adriel Booker eloquently describes these moments:

“You might understand intellectually that they [the waves] will keep coming, but some days they hit more forcefully, more fiercely than you ever imagined possible.”

This lack of predictability makes grief feel overwhelming. It’s not something you “get over,” but rather something you learn to navigate, much like a sailor facing unpredictable seas.

Navigating the First Waves of Grief
When a loss first occurs, the waves of grief can feel relentless. An insightful analogy from a viral Reddit post likens the initial experience of grief to a shipwreck:

“When the ship is first wrecked, you’re drowning, with wreckage all around you. Everything floating around you reminds you of the beauty and the magnificence of the ship that was, and is no more.”

In these early stages, the waves are towering and frequent, crashing over you with little respite. The best advice during this time is simply to float—cling to what sustains you, whether it’s a supportive friend, a cherished memory, or a comforting ritual. Survival is the priority.

The Changing Tides of Grief Over Time
As time passes, the waves of grief may become less frequent and slightly more predictable. Anniversaries, holidays, or milestones often serve as triggers, bringing back the pain of loss. However, with each passing wave, you gain resilience.

The Reddit post continues:

“Somewhere down the line… you find that the waves are only 80 feet tall. Or 50 feet tall. And while they still come, they come further apart. You can see them coming, for the most part, and prepare yourself.”

This doesn’t mean grief ever goes away. The waves still arrive, but they no longer hold the same power to drown you. Instead, they become reminders of the love and connection you shared, leaving behind scars that tell a story of resilience and remembrance.

Coping with the Waves
While grief may never fully disappear, there are ways to weather its storms:
1. Acknowledge Your Emotions: Allow yourself to feel without judgment. Grief is a natural response to love and loss.
2. Find Anchors: Lean on meaningful memories, objects, or relationships that ground you.
3. Seek Support: Whether through friends, family, or professional counselors, connection can be a lifeline.
4. Prepare for Triggers: Recognize that certain dates or events may bring waves of grief and plan how to cope in advance.
5. Practice Self-Compassion: Healing takes time, and there’s no “right” way to grieve.

Conclusion: A Lifelong Journey
Grief, much like the ocean, is vast and unpredictable. But with time and support, you can learn to navigate its waters. The waves will never stop coming, but they will change. And as you face each wave, you’ll discover strength and meaning in your journey.

Grief is a testament to love. As the Reddit post poignantly concludes:

“If you’re lucky, you’ll have lots of scars from lots of loves. And lots of shipwrecks.”

@ 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

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

President Trump plans to withdraw 20,000 U.S. troops from Europe and expects European allies to contribute financially to the remaining military presence. Reported by ANSA, Trump aims to deliver this message to European leaders since taking office. A European diplomat noted, “the costs cannot be borne solely by American taxpayers.”

The Pentagon hasn't commented yet. Trump has previously sought lower troop levels in Europe and had ordered cuts during his first term. The U.S. currently maintains around 65,000 troops in Europe, with total forces reaching 100,000 since the Ukraine invasion. Trump's new approach may shift military focus to the Pacific amid growing concerns about China.

Sauce

@ b97f07c7:a9ddca71

เปิดโลก social ยุคอนาคต ที่ creator ได้รับเงินจากคนอ่าน content เต็ม 100%! ทำความรู้จัก Nostr ที่จะเปลี่ยนโลกการใช้ social ของคุณกัน!

content จากประสบการณ์จริง ที่ดองนานในระยะนึงล่ะ แต่บอกเลยว่ามันก็ solve pain point ของ user ที่ไม่อยากลับลู้ว่า AI ของ platform นั้น มาคอย suggest อะไรที่เราไม่ได้ตาม

ส่วน content creator เอง เราเป็นคนเขียน คนทำ content บน platform นั้น ๆ ทุกอย่างควบคุมโดย platform ซึ่ง platform อาจจะถูกปิดเมื่อไหร่ก็ได้ ส่วนใหญ่โดนลด reach บางคนโดน platform ลบโพส บางคนโดน platform แบน เราจึงต้องมี asset เป็นของตัวเองอย่าง website ไม่งั้น content ที่เราตั้งใจทำหายไปเสียดายแย่เลย

ซึ่ง concept และการใช้งาน Nostr นั้นลด pain point ของ creator ที่ต้องไปทุก platform เพื่อครอง keyword ซึ่งเหนื่อยมาก ๆ ถ้าเป็นสายแบบเราที่เน้นโค้ดหน่อย ๆ ต้องมาสร้างผู้ติดตามใหม่ แต่ละช่องทางได้กลุ่มผู้ติดตามต่างกันอีก

ร่ายมายาวขนาดนี้เข้าเรื่อง Nostr ได้แล้ว ว่าแต่มันคืออะไร ใช้งานยังไง ต้องทำอะไรบ้าง ไปดูกันนนน

ปล. บทความนี้เป็นแนวแนะนำว่ามันคืออะไร ใช้งานยังไง ยังไม่ลงลึกด้านเดฟนะ คืออยากให้ใช้ให้เป็นก่อนนนนนน

Nostr คืออะไร?

Nostr ย่อมาจาก Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays เป็น open protocol ที่ถูกพัฒนาโดย Giovanni Torres Parra มีจุดประสงค์คือ สร้างเครือข่ายสังคมออนไลน์ที่ไม่ถูกควบคุมหรือเซ็นเซอร์

ในที่นี้ Notes หมายถึง social media และ other stuff คือ data communication

แล้ว protocol คืออะไรล่ะ? ก็คือเราคุยกันผ่านช่องทางไหนยังไง เช่น sms, email อะไรงี้

ดังนั้นมันก็คือ note & other stuff ที่ถูก transmit โดย Relays นั่นเอง

Workflow

ปกติเราทำแอพขึ้นมาแอพนึงประกอบด้วยอะไรบ้าง?

เดิมทีทีมแอพก็มีทีมหน้าบ้าน อย่าง frontend developer หรือ mobile developer อย่าง iOS และ Android แล้วก็ทีมหลังบ้าน backend developer ที่เป็นคนทำระบบหลังบ้าน ไม่ว่าจะเป็นทำ API ให้หน้าบ้านคุยกับ server แล้วก็จัดเก็บข้อมูลลง database ด้วย

flow ก็คือ user download แอพมา หรือใช้ website ตัวแอพหน้าบ้านจะเรียก API เพื่อทำอะไรบางอย่าง เช่น เปิดแอพมาเรียก API เพื่อ check ว่าเรา login อยู่ไหม แล้วก็ดึงหน้า feed มาแสดง

สำหรับ Nostr จะมีแค่คนทำหน้าบ้านเท่านั้น โดยตัวแอพเชื่อมต่อกับ relay ผ่านมาตรฐานของ NIP

ดังนั้น developer อย่างเราจะทำ client หรือตัวแอพที่ใช้ Nostr ได้เลย โดยใช้ Relay เดียวกันได้เลย ภายใต้มาตรฐานของ NIP เวลา user เปลี่ยนแอพใหม่ ตัวข้อมูล ตัวโพสต่าง ๆ ยังคงอยู่เหมือนเดิมที่ delay ไม่ต้องไปสร้าง follower ใหม่บน platform ใหม่ ๆ ให้เสียเวลา

การทำงานของ Nostr

สามารถดูตามภาพนี้ได้เลย เป็นภาพพื้นฐานในการเล่าเลย การทำงานเขาจะแบ่งเป็น 2 ฝั่ง คือ

• Client: คือแอพพลิเคชั่นที่ใช้เล่น Nostr นั่นแหละ เป็นฝั่ง user จะมี key pair คือ private key ใช้ในการยืนยันตัวตนนั่นแหละ เช่น เราเป็นคนโพสอันนี้นะ (เก็บไว้ให้ดี ๆ) และ public key บอกว่าเราคือใคร การทำงาน ตัว client เชื่อมต่อกับตัว relay เช่น บอกว่าใครเป็นคนสร้าง content นี้ หรือเราจะสร้าง content ใน Nostr ก็จะส่งข้อมูลรายละเอียดโพสอย่าง kind, content, tags, pubkey, create_at ตามมาตรฐาน NIPs ส่งไปที่ relay
• Relay: คือ database ตัวนึง ที่เป็นรูปแบบแบบกระจายศูนย์ ได้รับ event อะไร และส่งอะไรกลับไปบ้าง

ref: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr

แล้ว Client และ Relay สื่อสารระหว่างกันยังไง คุยกันผ่าน WebSocket นะ แล้วแต่ละ event จะส่งมาใน JSON format น่ะ

คุณสมบัติของ Nostr

• decentralized: relay คือ database แบบกระจายศูนย์
• open protocol: Nostr เป็น open protocol สามารถใช้งานได้หลายอย่าง
• censorship-resistant: user มีสิทธิ์เลือก relay เองได้
• high security: encrypt ข้อมูลส่วนตัวก่อนส่งทุกครั้ง

มาตรฐาน NIP

NIP ย่อมาจาก Nostr Implementation Possibilities คือ มาตรฐาน protocol ที่ใช้กันสำหรับ Nostr

ใน content นี้เราไม่ลงลึกมาก เดี๋ยวจะงงกัน เอาให้เห็นภาพคร่าว ๆ เพราะมันมีเยอะมาก

หลัก ๆ ที่เราใช้งานกัน จะมี

• NIP-01: Basic protocol เป็นอันพื้นฐานที่ต้องรู้ บอกโครงสร้าง event การรับส่งข้อมูลต่าง ๆ ทำให้เรารู้โครงสร้างแล้วเอาไปสร้าง client ได้เลย ทำให้ developer focus ที่โครงสร้างนี้อันเดียวเท่านั้นในการพัฒนา เช่น post บน Nostr นั่นแหละ
• NIP-05: Nostr Address บอกว่าเราเป็นใครใน internet ฟีลเดียวกันกับ email address ทำให้เราตั้งชื่อบัญชีให้จดจำได้ง่าย ช่วยในการค้นหาและติดตามกันได้ง่ายยิ่งขึ้น เช่นจากที่เราต้องเพิ่มเพื่อนผ่าน Nostr public key ที่ยาวเหลือเกิน เป็นอะไรสั้น ๆ ฟีล email เช่น mikkipastel@siamstr.com
• NIP-23: Long-form article พวก blog ต่าง ๆ
• NIP-53: สำหรับ live stream

ส่วนแบบอื่น ๆ สามารถอ่านรายละเอียดได้ที่นี่เลย https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/README.md

เริ่มใช้งานบนมือถือ

จาก workflow เราจะเห็นว่าเราสามารถใช้ client ตัวไหนก็ได้ในการเล่น Nostr และโลกของ Nostr มีตัวเลือกให้เราเยอะมากก แล้วเราจะเริ่มยังไงดี?

1. ติดตั้ง Wherostr เป็นแอพที่ทีมคนไทยทำ ใช้ง่ายมาก ๆ สามารถ download ได้ทั้ง App Store และ Play Store
2. แน่นอนว่าเรายังไม่มี account ให้สร้าง account
3. ปรับแต่ง profile ให้เรียบร้อย
4. เก็บ private key ไว้ในที่ปลอดภัย เพราะเป็น key ยืนยันตัวตนว่าเป็นเราในการทำธุรกรรมต่าง ๆ ในที่นี้คือสร้างโพส, กด like, กด share, รวมถึง zap ด้วย ในแอพอาจจะยังไม่เห็น process นี้ ต้องบนคอม

Tips: ไปรับ NIP05 สวย ๆ ได้ที่ https://siamstr.com/

การที่เราสร้าง account ใหม่นั้น จะเป็นการสร้าง key pair อันประกอบด้วย - public key: ขึ้นต้นด้วย npub1... โดยสามารถเพิ่มเพื่อนใน Nostr ผ่านอันนี้ได้ ซึ่งบอกว่าเราเป็นใคร - private key: ขึ้นต้นด้วย nsec1... เป็นส่วนที่เราต้องเก็บไว้ให้ดีเลย เพราะต้องเอามาใช้ sign กับการทำธุรกรรมของเรา เช่น การ login, สร้าง post, reaction post ใด ๆ

เชื่อมกับกระเป๋า Lightning

เชื่อมเพื่อรับ sat จากเพื่อน ๆ โดย sat เป็นหน่วยย่อยของ Bitcoin มาจาก Satoshi อันเป็นนามแฝงของผู้สร้าง Bitcoin โดย 1 Bitcoin = 100,000,000 Satoshi

1. ติดตั้ง Wallet of Satoshi ตัวแอพนี้เป็น custodial wallet ที่เราไม่ต้อง set อะไรเอง แต่เราไม่ได้ถือ key ของกระเป๋านี้เองนะ สามารถ download ได้ทั้ง App Store และ Play Store
2. เชื่อม email กับ Wallet of Satoshi เลข Lightning Wallet กดปุ่ม Receive แล้วก็ copy
3. กลับมาที่ Wherostr ไปที่ Profile ของเรา กด Edit Profile
4. วางเลขเป๋าตรง Bitcoin Lightning Address แล้วก็กด save

การใช้งานทั่วไป

ขอเปรียบเทียบกับ social network ที่เราใช้กันอยู่เนอะ สมัยก่อนโพสจะเรียงตามลำดับเวลา และเพิ่มเพื่อนหรือติดตามเพจก่อน เราถึงจะเห็น content เขาใน feed

แต่สมัยนี้ AI นำหมด ลองไถ feed ดูสิ เจอเพื่อนเราหรือเพจที่เราตามเท่าไหร่ใน 10 post ทำให้ตัว content creator ต้องเรียนรู้ algorithm ของ platform นั้น ๆ เพื่อให้ content ของเราผู้ติดตามเห็นมากขึ้น (งงม่ะ)

แล้ว Nostr ล่ะ? เหมือน social network สมัยก่อนที่เรียง feed ตามเวลาเลย เราสามารถกดติดตามเพื่อนได้ (และระบบนั้นให้เราได้ติดตามตัวเราเองได้ด้วยนะ5555) และอ่านโพสเพื่อน ๆ คนไทยใน Nostr ได้ผ่าน #siamstr

การสร้างโพส

การโพสก็แสนจะง่ายดาย กด + ตรงกลาง แล้วพิมพ์ เพิ่มรูปใด ๆ ได้ตามใจชอบเลย ฟีลประมาณ medium แหละเนอะ สำหรับ wherostr สามารถ tag สถานที่ได้ด้วย

จุดที่น่าสนใจ คือปุ่มเหมือน CPU กดไปดูจะพบว่าเราสามารถเลือก Proof of Work difficulty level ได้ ซึ่งถ้าเราตั้งไว้เพื่อกัน spam แหละ ถ้าตั้งสูงก็ใช้เวลาในการ solve นาน ซึ่ง default POW เป็น 8

เอ้ออย่าลืมติด #siamstr ด้วย

เมื่อเรียบร้อยแล้ว Post แล้วรอแปป โพสของเราเมื่อสร้างเสร็จแล้วจะอยู่บนสุดเหมือนแอพ social media ทั่วไปเลย

ข้อพึงระวัง

• ลงแล้ว edit post ไม่ได้
• และลบไม่ได้ด้วยนะจ๊ะ
• แชร์ลิ้งได้ แต่ก็ไม่แน่ใจว่าเพื่อนเปิดยังไงได้บ้าง บาง client อย่าง Yakihonne สามารถ share url link Nostr post ของเราได้เลยนะ

เราสามารถกด report, comment และ like ตามปกติเลย แต่มีปุ่มนึงเพิ่มมาจาก social network อื่น ๆ คือ zap นั่นเอง

Zap คืออะไร?

แน่นอนไม่ใช่การแอบแซ่บ แต่เป็นการที่เราเอา Bitcoin บน lightning มาใช้จ่ายต่าง ๆ เช่น เอาไปซื้อชากาแฟ หมูปิ้ง เค้กท้อฟฟี่ชลบุรี ปลากรอบ Crispy Will รวมถึงการ donate ให้กับเจ้าของ content ที่คนนี้เขียนดีมาก เรากด zap ให้เขาดีกว่า หรือไป zap ที่ profile ก็ได้ซึ่งทุก sat (satoshi หน่วยย่อยของ Bitcoin) ที่เขาส่งมาให้ เราได้รับครบทุก sat แบบไม่หักจาก platform เลย

วิธีการ zap ผ่าน Wherostr มี 2 ทาง คือ - zap ให้กับคนนั้น ๆ ที่ profile: ไปที่ profile ของเขา แล้วเราจะเห็นปุ่มสายฟ้า - zap ที่ post นั้น ๆ: เลื่อนไปล่างสุด เราจะเห็นปุ่ม repost, like, comment และอีกอันที่เป็นสายฟ้าคือ Zap

เมื่อกดปุ่ม Zap แล้ว เข้าไปหน้า Zap เลือกจำนวน sat ที่เราต้องการ Zap อาจจะใส่ข้อความไปด้วยก็ได้ แล้วก็กดปุ่ม Zap ด้านล่าง

จากนั้นมันจะเด้งไป Wallet of Satashi ที่เรา connect ไว้ ตรวจสอบธุรกรรม เรียบร้อยแล้วกด Send เขียว ๆ รอสักแปป เมื่อสำเร็จแล้วเราจะเห็นหน้าเขียว ๆ แบบนี้เลย

ถึงเงินอาจจะไม่ได้มากมายอะไรมัก ก็เป็นสิ่งที่ platform web2 ให้ไม่ได้เลยนะ กับความรู้สึกดี ๆ แบบนี้ ที่ลง content แล้วมีคนมา Zap ให้ ในขนาดที่ platform web2 ไม่มีคนกด send gift ให้เลย ฮือออออออออออ

Client App อื่น ๆ ที่น่าสนใจ

จริง ๆ เราจะใช้แอพ Client อื่น ๆ เล่น Nostr ได้นะ เพราะว่า Relay สามารถใช้ร่วมกันได้ในหลาย ๆ แอพ

ก่อนที่จะมีแอพ Wherostr เขาจะแนะนำกันว่า

ถ้าใช้ iOS ใช้แอพ Damus ส่วนชาว Android ใช้ Amethyst

ตอนนั้นที่เราลองเล่นเอง เราสร้าง account ผ่าน Iris แหละ เพราะ ก่อนหน้าที่เรารู้จัก Wherostr และเข้าใจ Nostr เราได้ลองกับ Nostr browser นึงที่ชื่อว่า Spring ในนั้นมีหลาย ๆ client ให้เราจิ้มเล่น และแอพนี้มีเฉพาะ Android เท่าน้านนน

สายเขียนบล็อก: Habla, Yakihonne, Npub.pro

ส่วนสายสตรีม: Zap.Stream

ส่วน Client อื่น ๆ สามารถเข้าไปดูได้ที่นี่ ซึ่งในนี้เป็นแค่ส่วนหนึ่งเท่านั้นแหละ https://nostrapps.com/

เริ่มใช้งานบนคอม

หลาย ๆ client นอกจากจะมีเป็นแอพบนมือถือ ยังมีเป็นหน้าเว็บไซต์อีกด้วย

สิ่งที่ต้องมีเพิ่มเติม คือ extension ที่ชื่อว่า Nostr Connect เราใส่ private key เข้าไปในนั้น พอเวลา sign transection ตัว extension จะไม่เอา private key ของเราตรง ๆ

หลังจากติดตั้ง extension ตัวนี้แล้ว การใช้งาน สมมุติเข้าเว็บ Wherostr กดปุ่ม Login แล้วจะมีหน้า popup เด้งมา ให้กด Login with Nostr extension แล้วจะขึ้นหน้าต่างให้เรา sign สองอัน คือ อ่าน public key กับ Relay

เมื่อ login เรียบร้อยแล้ว สมมุติเราสร้างโพสบนเว็บ Wherostr จามปกติ เรียบร้อยแล้วกด Post เขาจะให้เรา sign event ว่าเราเป็นคนสร้าง post นี้นะ เราจะเห็น transaction ออกมาเป็น json เลย ตามมาตรฐาน NIP-01

ปล. จริง ๆ จะกดไม่ให้เปิด popup ก็ได้นะ แต่เราอยากเปิดไว้เอง เอาไว้ check

และ extension อีกตัวที่มีคนแนะนำก่อนหน้านี้คือ Alby ตอนนี้ไม่ต้องไปขอ access code ก่อนถึงจะใช้ได้ สามารถเข้าไปสมัครที่นี่ได้เลย

https://getalby.com/

สุดท้าย ก็หวังว่าทุกคนรู้จัก Nostr กันไม่มากก็น้อยเนอะ

ถ้าใครอยากติดตามเราบน Nostr สามารถเปิดแอพ Wherostr หรืออื่น ๆ เพื่อ scan QR Code นี้ได้ หรือ copy public key หรือ Nostr user ไปหาได้น้า

แน่นอนในนี้เป็นการแท็กเราเอง nostr:npub1h9ls03lflhvgzzmkf6nsymspw3auh0f3d97c02e5l4edn2waefcszlq9qf

Reference

• https://nostr.com/
• https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr
• https://rightshift.to/2023/kp/14251/
• จริง ๆ ก็เอามาจากงาน Thailand Bitcoin Conference 2024 ที่เขียนไปด้วยแหละ แต่บวกกับการใช้งานจริงด้วย https://www.mikkipastel.com/thailand-bitcoin-conference-2024/

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

Lot of people are starting to talk about building a web-of-trust and how nostr can or is already being used as such

We all know about using the kind:3 following lists as a simple WoT that can be used to filter out spam. but as we all know it does not really signal "trust", its mostly just "I find your content interesting"

But what about real "trust"... well its kind of multi-denominational, I could trust that your a good developer or a good journalist but still not trust you enough to invite you over to my house. There are some interesting and clever solutions proposed for quantifying "trust" in a digital sense but I'm not going to get into that here. I want to talk about something that I have not see anyone discuss yet.

How is the web-of-trust maintained? or more precisely how do you expect users to update the digital representation of the "trust" of other users?

Its all well and good to think of how a user would create that "trust" of another user when discovering them for the first time. They would click the "follow" button, or maybe even rate them on a few topics with a 1/5 star system But how will a user remove that trust? how will they update it if things change and they trust them less?

If our goal is to model "trust" in a digital sense then we NEED a way for the data to stay up-to-date and as accurate as possible. otherwise whats the use? If we don't have a friction-less way to update or remove the digital representation of "trust" then we will end up with a WoT that continuously grows and everyone is rated 10/10

In the case of nostr kind:3 following lists. its pretty easy to see how these would get updated. If someone posts something I dislike or I notice I'm getting board of their content. then I just unfollow them. An important part here is that I'm not thinking "I should update my trust score of this user" but instead "I'm no longer interested, I don't want to see this anymore"

But that is probably the easiest "trust" to update. because most of us on social media spend some time curating our feed and we are used to doing it. But what about the more obscure "trust" scores? whats the regular mechanism by which a user would update the "honestly" score of another user?

In the real world its easy, when I stop trusting someone I simply stop associating with them. there isn't any button or switch I need to update. I simply don't talk to them anymore, its friction-less But in the digital realm I would have to remove or update that trust. in other words its an action I need to take instead of an action I'm not doing. and actions take energy.

So how do we reflect something in the digital world that takes no-energy and is almost subconscious in the real world?

TLDR; webs-of-trust are not just about scoring other users once. you must keep the score up-to-date

@ 1ec45473:d38df139

The probability of AGI ending us is negative.

A common tactic among doomers is to state something along the lines of the following:

"If we create AGI, there is some non-zero chance every year, that the AGI will end humanity. Whatever that chance is compounds every year, and is thus unacceptable."

The question I would ask the doomer is "How do you know that the chance of AGI ending humanity isn't negative?"

What does it mean for AGI to have a negative chance of ending humanity?

Setting aside AGI for a moment, what is the chance every year that humanity ends from other events, such as nuclear war, solar flares, super-volcanoes, asteroid hits, societal collapse, etc?

How do you even answer this question in a reasonable manner? Well lets look at past data.

Of all species that have existed 99% have gone extinct.

Of our closest 7 relatives from the genus Homo, 100% have gone extinct.

On a higher level looking at civilizational collapse. According to Wikipedia, virtually all historical societies have collapsed.

Looking out into the universe, we see no signs of life elsewhere, so if there was life in the past we can assume that they have gone extinct.

It would therefore be reasonable to say that the chance of our extinction is very high even without AGI, well above 90%. Maybe 99%.

You could argue the numbers but at least with these numbers we are using some past data to extrapolate the future, where the doomers are using no data whatsoever to support their numbers.

We can also state, that of all the species and societies that have collapsed in the past, they have done so because they did not yet have the knowledge on how to survive. They didn't know how to create antibiotics, or generate enough energy, or defend themselves from the environment.

What is AGI? AGI is a way to create knowledge. Most all societies in the past have collapsed because they didn't have the knowledge on how to survive, and the doomer argument is that we should slow down our ability to create knowledge, when we know that this has been precisely the problem in the past.

It is a certainty we will all die without more knowledge then we have now. The future death of our sun ensures that.

We have to create the knowledge on how to survive, and that is what AGI does - it creates knowledge.

AGI most certainly has a negative probability of ending humanity.

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

While I was in Mediera with all the other awesome people at the first SEC cohort there where a lot of discussions around data storage on nostr and if it could be made censorship-resistent

I remember lots of discussions about torrents, hypercore, nostr relays, and of course IPFS

There were a few things I learned from all these conversations:

1. All the existing solutions have one thing in common. A universal ID of some kind for files
2. HTTP is still good. we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water
3. nostr could fix this... somehow

Some of the existing solutions work well for large files, and all of them are decentralization in some way. However none of them seem capable of serving up cat pictures for social media clients. they all have something missing...

An Identity system

An identity system would allow files to be "owned" by users. and once files have owners servers could start grouping files into a single thing instead of a 1000+ loose files

This can also greatly simplify the question of "what is spam" for a server hosting (or seeding) these files. since it could simply have a whitelist of owners (and maybe their friends)

What is blossom?

Blossom is a set of HTTP endpoints that allow nostr users to store and retrieve binary data on public servers using the sha256 hash as a universal id

What are Blobs?

blobs are chunks of binary data. they are similar to files but with one key difference, they don't have names

Instead blobs have a sha256 hash (like b1674191a88ec5cdd733e4240a81803105dc412d6c6708d53ab94fc248f4f553) as an ID

These IDs are universal since they can be computed from the file itself using the sha256 hashing algorithm ( you can get a files sha256 hash on linux using: sha256sum bitcoin.pdf )

How do the servers work?

Blossom servers expose four endpoints to let clients and users upload and manage blobs

• GET /<sha256> (optional file .ext)
• PUT /upload
• Authentication: Signed nostr event
• Returns a blob descriptor
• GET /list/<pubkey>
• Returns an array of blob descriptors
• Authentication (optional): Signed nostr event
• DELETE /<sha256>
• Authentication: Signed nostr event

What is Blossom Drive?

Blossom Drive is a nostr app built on top of blossom servers and allows users to create and manage folders of blobs

What are Drives

Drives are just nostr events (kind 30563) that store a map of blobs and what filename they should have along with some extra metadata

An example drive event would be json { "pubkey": "266815e0c9210dfa324c6cba3573b14bee49da4209a9456f9484e5106cd408a5", "created_at": 1710773987, "content": "", "kind": 30563, "tags": [ [ "name", "Emojis" ], [ "description", "nostr emojis" ], [ "d", "emojis" ], [ "r", "https://cdn.hzrd149.com/" ], [ "x", "303f018e613f29e3e43264529903b7c8c84debbd475f89368cb293ec23938981", "/noStrudel.png", "15161", "image/png" ], [ "x", "a0e2b39975c8da1702374b3eed6f4c6c7333e6ae0008dadafe93bd34bfb2ca78", "/satellite.png", "6853", "image/png" ], [ "x", "e8f3fae0f4a43a88eae235a8b79794d72e8f14b0e103a0fed1e073d8fb53d51f", "/amethyst.png", "20487", "image/png" ], [ "x", "70bd5836807b916d79e9c4e67e8b07e3e3b53f4acbb95c7521b11039a3c975c6", "/nos.png", "36521", "image/png" ], [ "x", "0fc304630279e0c5ab2da9c2769e3a3178c47b8609b447a30916244e89abbc52", "/primal.png", "29343", "image/png" ], [ "x", "9a03824a73d4af192d893329bbc04cd3798542ee87af15051aaf9376b74b25d4", "/coracle.png", "18300", "image/png" ], [ "x", "accdc0cdc048f4719bb5e1da4ff4c6ffc1a4dbb7cf3afbd19b86940c01111568", "/iris.png", "24070", "image/png" ], [ "x", "2e740f2514d6188e350d95cf4756bbf455d2f95e6a09bc64e94f5031bc4bba8f", "/damus.png", "32758", "image/png" ], [ "x", "2e019f08da0c75fb9c40d81947e511c8f0554763bffb6d23a7b9b8c9e8c84abb", "/old emojis/astral.png", "29365", "image/png" ], [ "x", "d97f842f2511ce0491fe0de208c6135b762f494a48da59926ce15acfdb6ac17e", "/other/rabbit.png", "19803", "image/png" ], [ "x", "72cb99b689b4cfe1a9fb6937f779f3f9c65094bf0e6ac72a8f8261efa96653f5", "/blossom.png", "4393", "image/png" ] ] }

There is a lot going on but the main thing is the list of "x" tags and the path that describes the folder and filename the blob should live at

If your interested, the full event definition is at github.com/hzrd149/blossom-drive

Getting started

Like every good nostr client it takes a small instruction manual in order to use it properly. so here are the steps for getting started

1. Open the app

Open https://blossom.hzrd149.com

2. Login using extension

You can also login using any of the following methods using the input - NIP-46 with your https://nsec.app or https://flare.pub account - a NIP-46 connection string - an ncryptsec password protected private key - a nsec unprotected private key (please don't) - bunker:// URI from nsecbunker

3. Add a blossom server

Right now https://cdn.satellite.earth is the only public server that is compatible with blossom drive. If you want to host your own I've written a basic implementation in TypeScript github.com/hzrd149/blossom-server

4. Start uploading your files

NOTE: All files upload to blossom drive are public by default. DO NOT upload private files

5. Manage files

Encrypted drives

There is also the option to encrypt drives using NIP-49 password encryption. although its not tested at all so don't trust it, verify

Whats next?

I don't know, but Im excited to see what everyone else on nostr builds with this. I'm only one developer at the end of the day and I can't think of everything

also all the images in this article are stored in one of my blossom drives here

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqrhvvpzqfngzhsvjggdlgeycm96x4emzjlwf8dyyzdfg4hefp89zpkdgz99qq8xzun5d93kcefdd9kkzem9wvr46jka

@ 29af23a9:842ef0c1

Muitas garotas postam nas redes sociais que possuem algum defeito que evidentemente não possuem, para que as pessoas que gostam delas intuitivamente se manifestem afirmando o contrário. Os norte-americanos começaram a chamam isso de Problema de Elisabeth Kruger. Ou Síndrome de Elisabeth Kruger.

Isabella Garner Elisabeth Kruger era uma jovem muito atraente que vivia postando no Facebook que não chamava a atenção de ninguém porque era muito feia e que não tinha amigas porque era muito esquisita, ao mesmo tempo em que postava fotos dela mesma na rede. Com o tempo, muitos rapazes aleatórios começaram a responder dizendo que ela não era feia e suas amigas comentavam perguntando por que ela fazia isso, já que saíam todo final de semana com ela.

Então Bella parou de postar que era feia e começou a postar fotos dela alegando que se sentia esquisita. Os homens aleatórios logo pararam de comentar e os rapazes que conheciam ela começaram a enviar mensagem no privado. Daí os norte-americanos chamaram isso de Dilema do nariz de Bella.

Que era o dilema dos amigos de Bella em dizer diretamente que gostavam dela e que era evidente que ela não era feia nem esquisita.

Ou não falar a verdade para ela, elogiando somente o nariz. Tipo: "Você é horrorosa de fato, mas seu nariz é bonito.". "Você é muito esquisita realmente, mas seu nariz é lindo."

@ 1ec45473:d38df139

`` ______________ / /| / / | /____________ / | | ___________ | | || || | || #NOSTR || | || || | ||___________|| | | _______ | / /| (_______) | / ( |_____________|/ \ .=======================. | :::::::::::::::: ::: | | ::::::::::::::[] ::: | | ----------- ::: |-----------------------'

```

@ 0d7bc80d:aaf2218d

\ Volkesbewusstsein, as interpreted from Carl von Savigny’s legal philosophy, and utilized by Carl Schmitt in his own, refers to the common consciousness of the people.

For Savigny, this meant that the laws and boundaries of the state evolve organically out of the collective consciousness of the people in a given historical period. A blooming out of the shared cultural fabric of a society.

Schmitt’s interpretation is slightly more assertive, seen more as an imposition of the collective will in defining the sovereign and the state.

But what makes up the common consciousness of society in our time? How does that influence the formation of our state and its laws? My sense is that the thing most shared or collective about our current consciousness is the schizophrenic quality of it. Our cultural fabric is that of an insane asylum,. We swim deep inside the algorithmic passivity of our historical moment, and this has fragmented our consciousness.

The concept of the public sphere as conceptualized by Jürgen Habermas projects an idealized image of a bygone era of communal communication and a genuine shared experience of reality. The public sphere was an arena for dialogue, disagreement, and maybe even reconciliation. This ideal held that communication occurred outside the bounds of state and market manipulation and held to rational discourse as a means of discovering Volkesbewusstsein.

Habermas was aware and critical of the modern erosion of the public sphere due to mass media and its influences. And here we are now in our cultural moment. It’s become trite to remind ourselves of the algorithmic sway that we encounter on a daily basis through social media news feeds. But this is one of those realities we need to continually encounter to take seriously, because it backgrounds itself so well. We become passive automatons swayed for engagement. AI agents capturing our attention and manipulating the lizard brain.

We are all aware of this.

However, to what extent are we understanding the schizophrenic agency of the algorithmic hyper-agent? There’s undoubtedly intentional manipulation of information for explicit ends, not explicit to us necessarily, but to someone or some bureaucracy.

What happens though when we have a myriad of explicit algorithmic hyper-agents taking over the public sphere? I’m no clinician, but my diagnosis is schizophrenia at the level of our distributed cognition. We’re in a collective asylum and the guards are insane too.

What kind of heroes emerge out of that cultural fabric? Well, insane ones. And they will look perfectly sane in their response to a system of state sovereignty and laws that have emerged out of that asylum. And we’ll cheer it on as it feels like entropy towards collapse is the only thing that might save us. Not that we are always conscious of our entropic aims. But the walls are crumbling down, and everyone has a sledgehammer, so we decide to pick one up as well. We’d prefer to feel that we’re at least exercising SOME sort of agency, after all.

I find myself entirely addicted to my comforting insanity. Precisely because it gives me the illusion of agency, rather than the passivity that Habermas feared would be the destruction of the public sphere. I’m grateful that every now and then, I’m able to stand back and examine the frames I’m applying, or that have been applied for me, and recognize my passivity.

Perennially, it becomes apparent that we need to step outside of the passive sway of our screens and to engage in an algorithmic free salon. The idealized picture of humans in a communal space, with minimally distorted flows of information, in true dialogue. A mutual respect for each other and our different value judgements, with a shared commitment to orienting towards truth.

The most basic way we can do this is to continually step back from the asylum, and find a quiet corner to discuss with other well intentioned patients how we might organically blossom out a new common consciousness. It’s hegemonic character, that which dominates it, need not be the assertion of one difference over the other, but the assertion that differences in value systems share some orientation.

All this must be, for now, done from the place of acceptance of our diagnosis. Our conversations in the public sphere will need to continually encounter and correct for our schizophrenia. But if enough of us pick up a hammer and start smashing it against the wall of the asylum, a new organic shared consciousness has a shot at arising.

@ 141daddd:1df80a3f

When we talk about escaping the matrix, the phrase often conjures images of dramatic physical change—abandoning the city for a remote wilderness, building a self-sufficient life in a village, or retreating to the mountains to escape the noise of modernity. But this interpretation, while romantic, misses the essence of what it truly means to break free. Escaping the matrix is not about fleeing the material world. It is not about geography or lifestyle. It is, above all, a mental and spiritual transformation.

Even in the movie The Matrix, which serves as a powerful allegory for this concept, Morpheus tells Neo that the prison he lives in is not a physical one. It is a prison of the mind. This statement cuts to the core of the matter: the matrix we seek to escape is not an external construct but an internal one. It is the web of beliefs, fears, and limitations that bind us. The bars of this prison are forged from societal expectations, inherited ideologies, and the relentless pursuit of material validation. To escape the matrix, we must first break free from these mental chains.

The Real Battle: Within the Mind

The material world undoubtedly imposes certain limitations—laws, systems, and structures that shape our daily lives. And while it is possible to challenge and even overcome some of these external barriers, the greatest battle is fought within. The matrix is not something you can physically run from because it exists in your perception, in the way you interpret and interact with the world.

True freedom begins with elevating your consciousness. It is not about rejecting the material matrix but transcending it. You do not escape by leaving the system behind; you escape by rising above it. This shift in perspective allows you to see the matrix for what it is—a construct, a playground, a stage upon which life unfolds. When you reach this level of awareness, you are no longer a passive participant, a consumer of someone else’s design. Instead, you become a co-creator of your reality.

Living Above the Matrix

To live above the matrix is to observe it without being consumed by it. You recognize its rules and structures, but you are no longer bound by them. You begin to shape your life not according to the desires and expectations of others but according to your own higher purpose. This is not escapism; it is empowerment. You are still in the matrix, but you are no longer of it.

This shift transforms the matrix from a prison into a playground. You engage with it consciously, using it as a tool to create a more fulfilling life. You are no longer a pawn in someone else’s game but a player in your own. By breaking free from the mental constructs that once confined you, you reclaim your power and your agency.

The Path to Co-Creation

Escaping the matrix is not about rejecting the material world but about redefining your relationship with it. It is about moving from a state of consumption to one of creation. When you elevate your consciousness, you stop being a passive recipient of the matrix’s programming. Instead, you begin to actively participate in shaping it. You become a co-creator, weaving your own vision into the fabric of reality.

This process requires introspection, courage, and a willingness to let go of old paradigms. It is not an easy path, but it is a liberating one. By breaking free from the prison of the mind, you unlock the potential to live a life of purpose, creativity, and fulfillment.

The Choice is Yours

The matrix is not something to be feared or fled from. It is a challenge, an opportunity, a mirror reflecting your own inner state. To escape it is not to abandon the world but to transcend it. The question is not whether the matrix exists but whether you will allow it to define you. Will you remain a prisoner of its illusions, or will you rise above and become a co-creator of your reality?

The choice, as Morpheus would say, is yours.

@ f977c464:32fcbe00

Güneşin kaybolmasının üçüncü günü, saat öğlen on ikiyi yirmi geçiyordu. Trenin kalkmasına yaklaşık iki saat vardı. Hepimiz perondaydık. Valizlerimiz, kolilerimiz, renk renk ve biçimsiz çantalarımızla yan yana dizilmiş, kısa aralıklarla tepemizdeki devasa saati kontrol ediyorduk.

Ama ne kadar dik bakarsak bakalım zaman bir türlü istediğimiz hızla ilerlemiyordu. Herkes birkaç dakika sürmesi gereken alelade bir doğa olayına sıkışıp kalmış, karanlıktan sürünerek çıkmayı deniyordu.

Bekleme salonuna doğru döndüm. Nefesimden çıkan buharın arkasında, kalın taş duvarları ve camlarıyla morg kadar güvenli ve soğuk duruyordu. Cesetleri o yüzden bunun gibi yerlere taşımaya başlamışlardı. Demek insanların bütün iyiliği başkaları onları gördüğü içindi ki gündüzleri gecelerden daha karanlık olduğunda hemen birbirlerinin gırtlağına çökmüş, böğürlerinde delikler açmış, gözlerini oyup kafataslarını parçalamışlardı.

İstasyonun ışığı titrediğinde karanlığın enseme saplandığını hissettim. Eğer şimdi, böyle kalabalık bir yerde elektrik kesilse başımıza ne gelirdi?

İçerideki askerlerden biri bakışlarımı yakalayınca yeniden saate odaklanmış gibi yaptım. Sadece birkaç dakika geçmişti.

“Tarlalarım gitti. Böyle boyum kadar ayçiçeği doluydu. Ah, hepsi ölüp gidiyor. Afitap’ın çiçekleri de gi-”

“Dayı, Allah’ını seversen sus. Hepimizi yakacaksın şimdi.”

Karanlıkta durduğunda, görünmez olmayı istemeye başlıyordun. Kimse seni görmemeli, nefesini bile duymamalıydı. Kimsenin de ayağının altında dolaşmamalıydın; gelip kazayla sana çarpmamalılar, takılıp sendelememeliydiler. Yoksa aslında hedefi sen olmadığın bir öfke gürlemeye başlar, yaşadığın ilk şoku ve acıyı silerek üstünden geçerdi.

İlk konuşan, yaşlıca bir adam, kafasında kasketi, nasırlı ellerine hohluyordu. Gözleri ve burnu kızarmıştı. Güneşin kaybolması onun için kendi başına bir felaket değildi. Hayatına olan pratik yansımalarından korkuyordu olsa olsa. Bir anının kaybolması, bu yüzden çoktan kaybettiği birinin biraz daha eksilmesi. Hayatta kalmasını gerektiren sebepler azalırken, hayatta kalmasını sağlayacak kaynaklarını da kaybediyordu.

Onu susturan delikanlıysa atkısını bütün kafasına sarmış, sakalı ve yüzünün derinliklerine kaçmış gözleri dışında bedeninin bütün parçalarını gizlemeye çalışıyordu. İşte o, güneşin kaybolmasının tam olarak ne anlama geldiğini anlamamış olsa bile, dehşetini olduğu gibi hissedebilenlerdendi.

Güneşin onlardan alındıktan sonra kime verileceğini sormuyorlardı. En başta onlara verildiğinde de hiçbir soru sormamışlardı zaten.

İki saat ne zaman geçer?

Midemin üstünde, sağ tarafıma doğru keskin bir acı hissettim. Karaciğerim. Gözlerimi yumdum. Yanımda biri metal bir nesneyi yere bıraktı. Bir kafesti. İçerisindeki kartalın ıslak kokusu burnuma ulaşmadan önce bile biliyordum bunu.

“Yeniden mi?” diye sordu bana kartal. Kanatları kanlı. Zamanın her bir parçası tüylerinin üstüne çöreklenmişti. Gagası bir şey, tahminen et parçası geveliyor gibi hareket ediyordu. Eski anılar kolay unutulmazmış. Şu anda kafesinin kalın parmaklıklarının ardında olsa da bunun bir aldatmaca olduğunu bir tek ben biliyordum. Her an kanatlarını iki yana uzatıverebilir, hava bu hareketiyle dalgalanarak kafesi esneterek hepimizi içine alacak kadar genişleyebilir, parmaklıklar önce ayaklarımızın altına serilir gibi gözükebilir ama aslında hepimizin üstünde yükselerek tepemize çökebilirdi.

Aşağıya baktım. Tahtalarla zapt edilmiş, hiçbir yere gidemeyen ama her yere uzanan tren rayları. Atlayıp koşsam… Çantam çok ağırdı. Daha birkaç adım atamadan, kartal, suratını bedenime gömerdi.

“Bu sefer farklı,” diye yanıtladım onu. “Yeniden diyemezsin. Tekrarladığım bir şey değil bu. Hatta bir hata yapıyormuşum gibi tonlayamazsın da. Bu sefer, insanların hak etmediğini biliyorum.”

“O zaman daha vahim. Süzme salaksın demektir.”

“İnsanların hak etmemesi, insanlığın hak etmediği anlamına gelmez ki.”

Az önce göz göze geldiğim genççe ama çökük asker hâlâ bana bakıyordu. Bir kartalla konuştuğumu anlamamıştı şüphesiz. Yanımdakilerden biriyle konuştuğumu sanmış olmalıydı. Ama konuştuğum kişiye bakmıyordum ona göre. Çekingence kafamı eğmiştim. Bir kez daha göz göze geldiğimizde içerideki diğer iki askere bir şeyler söyledi, onlar dönüp beni süzerken dışarı çıktı.

Yanımızdaki, az önce konuşan iki adam da şaşkınlıkla bir bana bir kartala bakıyordu.

“Yalnız bu sefer kalbin de kırılacak, Prometheus,” dedi kartal, bana. “Belki son olur. Biliyorsun, bir sürü soruna neden oluyor bu yaptıkların.”

Beni koruyordu sözde. En çok kanıma dokunan buydu. Kasıklarımın üstüne oturmuş, kanlı suratının ardında gözleri parlarken attığı çığlık kulaklarımda titremeye devam ediyordu. Bu tabloda kimsenin kimseyi düşündüğü yoktu. Kartalın, yanımızdaki adamların, artık arkama kadar gelmiş olması gereken askerin, tren raylarının, geçmeyen saatlerin…

Arkamı döndüğümde, asker sahiden oradaydı. Zaten öyle olması gerekiyordu; görmüştüm bunu, biliyordum. Kehanetler… Bir şeyler söylüyordu ama ağzı oynarken sesi çıkmıyordu. Yavaşlamış, kendisini saatin akışına uydurmuştu. Havada donan tükürüğünden anlaşılıyordu, sinirliydi. Korktuğu için olduğunu biliyordum. Her seferinde korkmuşlardı. Beni unutmuş olmaları işlerini kolaylaştırmıyordu. Sadece yeni bir isim vermelerine neden oluyordu. Bu seferkiyle beni lanetleyecekleri kesinleşmişti.

Olması gerekenle olanların farklı olması ne kadar acınasıydı. Olması gerekenlerin doğasının kötücül olmasıysa bir yerde buna dayanıyordu.

“Salaksın,” dedi kartal bana. Zamanı aşan bir çığlık. Hepimizin önüne geçmişti ama kimseyi durduramıyordu.

Sonsuzluğa kaç tane iki saat sıkıştırabilirsiniz?

Ben bir tane bile sıkıştıramadım.

Çantama uzanıyordum. Asker de sırtındaki tüfeğini indiriyordu. Benim acelem yoktu, onunsa eli ayağı birbirine dolaşıyordu. Oysaki her şey tam olması gerektiği anda olacaktı. Kehanet başkasının parmaklarının ucundaydı.

Güneş, bir tüfeğin patlamasıyla yeryüzüne doğdu.

Rayların üzerine serilmiş göğsümün ortasından, bir çantanın içinden.

Not: Bu öykü ilk olarak 2021 yılında Esrarengiz Hikâyeler'de yayımlanmıştır.

@ d57360cb:4fe7d935

Martial Arts has a way of imparting deep lessons on you, lessons that you feel deep to the core. Here are a few that have stuck with me. These lessons extend beyond the field of martial arts into every area of life, may you find value in them.

Static Vs Dynamic

The world is a dynamic and fluid domain, yet we think statically. This error makes us incompatible. When we think about the future and the past, they are fixed in our minds. We might have a grand plan for how we will beat our opponent or hold fear of a loss we suffered at the hands of another opponent. Because these are harbored in our minds, we are fixed in place entering a battle which is constantly moving.

To succeed one has to abandon the static and learn to dance. Let me explain this through the problem solving process.

Problem Solving

Imagine there's a giant wall in front of you and this wall is going to fall directly on top of you. Here you're faced with a problem, the wall falling and you also might have guessed the solution which is get out of the way. The usual approach people take in solving problems is they wait til the problem has already taken place and established itself to act.

Knowing fully the wall is falling they will wait til the wall has crushed them, only then they'll enact their plan to get out of the way. Their plan may very well work but not when the wall has already fallen, this renders their plan useless even though it is the correct solution. In their minds they see the problem and the solution only taking place when certain factors are met and conditions are perfect.

They will not act to evade a punch until hit in the face, they won't try to escape a choke until their opponent is squeezing the life out of them. This is the error of unskilled beginners yet it's a necessary path to the dynamic.

The best way to avoid danger is not going there in the first place

At a certain point you will get tired of getting hit in the face, getting choked out, and having the wall get crushed on you. You will see others using the very same solutions you're using and wonder why they succeed and you don't. The cogs in your brain come alive and you begin to think if the solution is to get out the way, I need to do it before or as the wall is falling not when it's already fallen. This takes you from the static to the dynamic, from thinking to feeling.

Instead of thinking and anticipating a punch and then moving, you no longer anticipate you immerse yourself in the chaos and are free to feel. You no longer wait for your opponent to have his hands around your neck to avoid getting choked, you avoid the situation altogether. You see the wall falling and you step out of the way, by nature another wall replaces it, this one is also falling and you maneuver out of its way. This is the great dance, this is the art.

Failure is Information

"The fool that persists in his folly soon becomes wise"

In life as in the arts you will continually face failures or walls. Most people view these as negative. Having a wall crushed on them they take it personally, blame themselves, how terrible they are and how much better their opponent is. These are your trusted guides they show you where you are fixed in place, they show you your inflexibility, your rigidity. They humble you over and over. It may take days, weeks, years or months for you to realize. In this way the end never arrives, the path of practice is the goal.

With diligence and patience the thing you once saw as a failure will become your wisest friend.

No opponent

Each person is going through this struggle internally. They face their own set of problems. In this way your opponents serve you as you serve them. The person that beats you down is not a rival, he's also not 'better' in any way he's exposed you and shown you the areas you have blindspots and weakness in. In the same way you serve that purpose for those just starting on the path. You may beat someone down and think you are 'better' than those you dominate. This is the wrong view you are a guide to those below you and student to those above you.

If you get caught up in your ego and status you will be blinded. One must leave the static world of victory and loss to find the dynamic.

Everything Bleeds

This was a post on material arts, but you could very well replace martial arts with any field and any set of problems. The incompatible mix of the static mind and dynamic world is found in every area of life. The lessons you learn from one area can be translated to another, these lessons are fundamental. In this way lessons bleed and overflow into everything you touch. You are the center of experience the things you devote time to in life are merely tools of expression.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

O Planetinha

Fumaça verde me entrando pelas narinas e um coro desafinado fazia uma base melódica.

nos confins da galáxia havia um planetinha isolado. Era um planeta feliz.

O homem vestido de mago começava a aparecer por detrás da fumaça verde.

O planetinha recebeu três presentes, mas o seu habitante, o homem, estava num estado de confusão tão grande que ameaçava estragá-los. Os homens já havia escravizado o primeiro presente, a vida; lutavam contra o segundo presente, a morte; e havia alguns que achavam que deviam destruir totalmente o terceiro, o amor, e com isto levar a desordem total ao pobre planetinha perdido, que se chamava Terra.

O coro desafinado entrou antes do "Terra" cantando várias vezes, como se imitasse um eco, "terra-terra-terraaa". Depois de uma pausa dramática, o homem vestido de mago voltou a falar.

Terra, nossa nave mãe.

Neste momento eu me afastei. À frente do palco onde o mago e seu coral faziam apelos à multidão havia vários estandes cobertos com a tradicional armação de quatro pernas e lona branca. Em todos os cantos da praça havia gente, gente dos mais variados tipos. Visitantes curiosos que se aproximavam atraídos pela fumaça verde e as barraquinhas, gente que aproveitava o movimento para vender doces sem pagar imposto, casais que se abraçavam de pé para espantar o frio, os tradicionais corredores que faziam seu cooper, gente cheia de barba e vestida para imitar os hippies dos anos 60 e vender colares estendidos no chão, transeuntes novos e velhos, vestidos como baladeiros ou como ativistas do ônibus grátis, grupos de ciclistas entusiastas.

O mago fazia agora apelos para que nós, os homens, habitantes do isolado planetinha, passássemos a ver o planetinha, nossa nave mãe, como um todo, e adquiríssemos a consciência de que ele estava entrando em maus lençóis. A idéia, reforçada pela logomarca do evento, era que parássemos de olhar só para a nossa vida e pensássemos no planeta.

A logomarca do evento, um desenho estilizado do planeta Terra, nada tinha a ver com seu nome: "Festival Andando de Bem com a Vida", mas havia sido ali colocada estrategicamente pelos organizadores, de quem parecia justamente sair a mensagem dita pelo mago.

Aquela multidão de pessoas que, assim como eu, tinham suas próprias preocupações, não podiam ver o quadro caótico que formavam, cada uma com seus atos isolados, ali naquela praça isolada, naquele planeta isolado. Quando o hippie barbudo, quase um Osho, assustava um casal para tentar vender-lhes um colar, a quantidade de caos que isto acrescentava à cena era gigantesca. Por um segundo, pude ver, como se estivesse de longe e acima, com toda a pretensão que este estado imaginativo carrega, a cena completa do caos.

---

Uma nave-mãe, dessas de ficção científica, habitada por milhões de pessoas, seguia no espaço sem rumo, e sem saber que logo à frente um longo precipício espacial a esperava, para a desgraça completa sua e de seus habitantes.

Acostumados àquela nave tanto quanto outrora estiveram acostumados à sua terra natal, os homens viviam as próprias vidas sem nem se lembrar que estavam vagando pelo espaço. Ninguém sabia quem estava conduzindo a nave, e ninguém se importava.

No final do filme descobre-se que era a soma completa do caos que cada habitante produzia, com seus gestos egoístas e incapazes de levar em conta a totalidade, é que determinava a direção da nave-mãe. O efeito, no entanto, não era imediato, como nunca é. Havia gente de verdade encarregada de conduzir a nave, mas era uma gente bêbada, mau-caráter, que vivia brigando pelo controle da nave e o poder que isto lhes dava. Poder, status, dinheiro!

Essa gente bêbada era atraída até ali pela corrupção das instituições e da moral comum que, no fundo no fundo, era causada pelo egoísmo da população, através de um complexo -- mas que no filme aparece simplificado pela ação individual de um magnata do divertimento público -- processo social.

O homem vestido de mago era mais um agente causador de caos, com sua cena cheia de fumaça e sua roupa estroboscópica, ele achava que estava fazendo o bem ao alertar sua platéia, todos as sextas-feiras, de que havia algo que precisava ser feito, que cada um que estava ali ouvindo era responsável pelo planeta. A sua incapacidade, porém, de explicar o que precisava ser feito só aumentava a angústia geral; a culpa que ele jogava sobre seu público, e que era prontamente aceita e passada em frente, aos familiares e amigos de cada um, atormentava-os diariamente e os impedia de ter uma vida decente no trabalho e em casa. As famílias, estressadas, estavam constantemente brigando e os motivos mais insignificantes eram responsáveis pelas mais horrendas conseqüências.

O mago, que após o show tirava o chapéu entortado e ia tomar cerveja num boteco, era responsável por uma parcela considerável do caos que levava a nave na direção do seu desgraçado fim. No filme, porém, um dos transeuntes que de passagem ouviu um pedaço do discurso do mago despertou em si mesmo uma consiência transformadora e, com poderes sobre-humanos que lhe foram então concedidos por uma ordem iniciática do bem ou não, usando só os seus poderes humanos mesmo, o transeunte -- na primeira versão do filme um homem, na segunda uma mulher -- consegue consertar as instituições e retirar os bêbados da condução da máquina. A questão da moral pública é ignorada para abreviar a trama, já com duas horas e quarenta de duração, mas subentende-se que ela também fora resolvida.

---

No planeta Terra real, que não está indo em direção alguma, preso pela gravidade ao Sol, e onde as pessoas vivem a própria vida porque lhes é impossível viver a dos outros, não têm uma consciência global de nada porque só é possível mesmo ter a consciência delas mesmas, e onde a maioria, de uma maneira ou de outra, está tentando como pode, fazer as coisas direito, o filme é exibido.

Para a maioria dos espectadores, é um filme que evoca reflexões, um filme forte. Por um segundo elas têm o mesmo vislumbre do caos generalizado que eu tive ali naquela praça. Para uma pequena parcela dos espectadores -- entre eles alguns dos que estavam na platéia do mago, o próprio mago, o seguidor do Osho, o casal de duas mulheres e o vendedor de brigadeiros, mas aos quais se somam também críticos de televisão e jornal e gente que fala pelos cotovelos na internet -- o filme é um horror, o filme é uma vulgarização de um problema real e sério, o filme apela para a figura do herói salvador e passa uma mensagem totalmente errada, de que a maioria da população pode continuar vivendo as suas própria vidinhas miseráveis enquanto espera por um herói que vem do Olimpo e os salva da mixórdia que eles mesmos causaram, é um filme que presta um enorme desserviço à causa.

No dia seguinte ao lançamento, num bar meio caro ali perto da praça, numa mesa com oito pessoas, entre elas seis do primeiro grupo e oito do segundo, discute-se se o filme levará ou não o Oscar. Eu estou em casa dormindo e não escuto nada.

@ 105cfd51:7985e537

Sin88 là một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến nổi bật, mang đến cho người dùng một không gian giải trí phong phú và đa dạng. Với giao diện dễ sử dụng và thiết kế trực quan, Sin88 tạo ra một trải nghiệm mượt mà và thú vị cho tất cả người dùng. Nền tảng này không chỉ đáp ứng nhu cầu giải trí mà còn mang lại những trải nghiệm mới mẻ và đầy sáng tạo, giúp người dùng thư giãn và tận hưởng những giây phút vui vẻ ngay tại nhà. Sin88 đã nhanh chóng trở thành một điểm đến phổ biến cho những ai tìm kiếm một không gian giải trí chất lượng và đáng tin cậy.

Một trong những điểm mạnh của Sin88 chính là sự đa dạng trong các hoạt động giải trí mà nền tảng này cung cấp. Người dùng có thể tham gia vào nhiều loại hình giải trí khác nhau, từ các trò chơi thử thách kỹ năng đến những trải nghiệm nhập vai đầy hấp dẫn. Sin88 luôn cập nhật và đổi mới nội dung để người dùng luôn có thể khám phá những hoạt động mới mẻ và thú vị. Với sự đa dạng này, nền tảng thu hút được một lượng lớn người dùng với các sở thích và nhu cầu khác nhau, mang đến sự hài lòng và trải nghiệm phong phú cho tất cả.

SIN88 cũng đặc biệt chú trọng đến chất lượng dịch vụ và sự hài lòng của người dùng. Nền tảng này luôn nỗ lực cải thiện và nâng cao các tính năng để đảm bảo rằng người dùng có thể trải nghiệm những dịch vụ tốt nhất. Các dịch vụ hỗ trợ người dùng luôn sẵn sàng và nhanh chóng, giúp giải quyết mọi thắc mắc và vấn đề mà người dùng có thể gặp phải trong quá trình sử dụng. Với đội ngũ chăm sóc khách hàng chuyên nghiệp và nhiệt tình, Sin88 cam kết mang lại dịch vụ chất lượng cao và sự hài lòng tuyệt đối cho người dùng.

Bên cạnh đó, Sin88 cũng rất chú trọng đến vấn đề bảo mật và an toàn của người dùng. Nền tảng này sử dụng các công nghệ tiên tiến và biện pháp bảo vệ nghiêm ngặt để đảm bảo rằng thông tin cá nhân của người dùng luôn được bảo mật tuyệt đối. Mọi giao dịch và hoạt động trên nền tảng đều được thực hiện trong môi trường an toàn và đáng tin cậy. Sin88 cam kết bảo vệ quyền lợi của người dùng, giúp họ yên tâm tận hưởng các hoạt động giải trí mà không lo ngại về sự cố hay rủi ro liên quan đến bảo mật.

Cuối cùng, Sin88 không chỉ là một nền tảng giải trí mà còn là một cộng đồng năng động, nơi người dùng có thể kết nối và giao lưu với những người có cùng sở thích. Nền tảng này luôn nỗ lực mang đến những trải nghiệm giải trí mới mẻ, an toàn và hòa nhập cho tất cả mọi người. Sin88 hướng tới việc phát triển một cộng đồng giải trí trực tuyến vững mạnh, nơi mọi người có thể tìm thấy niềm vui, sự thư giãn và kết nối với nhau. Sự kết hợp giữa nội dung phong phú, dịch vụ chất lượng và bảo mật cao đã giúp Sin88 xây dựng được lòng tin vững chắc từ cộng đồng người dùng, trở thành một lựa chọn hàng đầu trong ngành giải trí trực tuyến.

@ f977c464:32fcbe00

Kendisini aynada ilk defa gördüğü o gün, diğerleri gibi olduğunu anlamıştı. Oysaki her insan biricik olmalıydı. Sözgelimi sinirlendiğinde bir kaşı diğerinden birkaç milimetre daha az çatılabilirdi veya sevindiğinde dudağı ona has bir açıyla dalgalanabilirdi. Hatta bunların hiçbiri mümkün değilse, en azından, gözlerinin içinde sadece onun sahip olabileceği bir ışık parlayabilirdi. Çok sıradan, öyle sıradan ki kimsenin fark etmediği o milyonlarca minik şeyden herhangi biri. Ne olursa.

Ama yansımasına bakarken bunların hiçbirini bulamadı ve diğer günlerden hiç de farklı başlamamış o gün, işe gitmek için vagonunun gelmesini beklediği alelade bir metro istasyonunda, içinde kaybolduğu illüzyon dağılmaya başladı.

İlk önce derisi döküldü. Tam olarak dökülmedi aslında, daha çok kıvılcımlara dönüşüp bedeninden fırlamış ve bir an sonra sönerek külleşmiş, havada dağılmıştı. Ardında da, kaybolmadan hemen önce, kısa süre için hayal meyal görülebilen, bir ruhun yok oluşuna ağıt yakan rengârenk peri cesetleri bırakmıştı. Beklenenin aksine, havaya toz kokusu yayıldı.

Dehşete düştü elbette. Dehşete düştüler. Panikle üstlerini yırtan 50 işçi. Her şeyin sebebiyse o vagon.

Saçları da döküldü. Her tel, yere varmadan önce, her santimde ikiye ayrıla ayrıla yok oldu.

Bütün yüzeylerin mat olduğu, hiçbir şeyin yansımadığı, suyun siyah aktığı ve kendine ancak kameralarla bakabildiğin bir dünyada, vagonun içine yerleştirilmiş bir aynadan ilk defa kendini görmek.

Gözlerinin akları buharlaşıp havada dağıldı, mercekleri boşalan yeri doldurmak için eriyip yayıldı. Gerçeği görmemek için yaratılmış, bu yüzden görmeye hazır olmayan ve hiç olmayacak gözler.

Her şeyin o anda sona erdiğini sanabilirdi insan. Derin bir karanlık ve ölüm. Görmenin görmek olduğu o anın bitişi.

---

Ben geldiğimde ölmüşlerdi.

Yani bozulmuşlardı demek istiyorum.

Belleklerini yeni taşıyıcılara takmam mümkün olmadı. Fiziksel olarak kusursuz durumdaydılar, olmayanları da tamir edebilirdim ama tüm o hengamede kendilerini baştan programlamış ve girdilerini modifiye etmişlerdi.

Belleklerden birini masanın üzerinden ileriye savurdu. Hınca hınç dolu bir barda oturuyorlardı. O ve arkadaşı.

Sırf şu kendisini insan sanan androidler travma geçirip delirmesin diye neler yapıyoruz, insanın aklı almıyor.

Eliyle arkasını işaret etti.

Polislerin söylediğine göre biri vagonun içerisine ayna yerleştirmiş. Bu zavallılar da kapı açılıp bir anda yansımalarını görünce kafayı kırmışlar.

Arkadaşı bunların ona ne hissettirdiğini sordu. Yani o kadar bozuk, insan olduğunu sanan androidi kendilerini parçalamış olarak yerde görmek onu sarsmamış mıydı?

Hayır, sonuçta belirli bir amaç için yaratılmış şeyler onlar. Kaliteli bir bilgisayarım bozulduğunda üzülürüm çünkü parasını ben vermişimdir. Bunlarsa devletin. Bana ne ki?

Arkadaşı anlayışla kafasını sallayıp suyundan bir yudum aldı. Kravatını biraz gevşetti.

Bira istemediğinden emin misin?

İstemediğini söyledi. Sahi, neden deliriyordu bu androidler?

Basit. Onların yapay zekâlarını kodlarken bir şeyler yazıyorlar. Yazılımcılar. Biliyorsun, ben donanımdayım. Bunlar da kendilerini insan sanıyorlar. Tiplerine bak.

Sesini alçalttı.

Arabalarda kaza testi yapılan mankenlere benziyor hepsi. Ağızları burunları bile yok ama şu geldiğimizden beri sakalını düzeltip duruyor mesela. Hayır, hepsi de diğerleri onun sakalı varmış sanıyor, o manyak bir şey.

Arkadaşı bunun delirmeleriyle bağlantısını çözemediğini söyledi. O da normal sesiyle konuşmaya devam etti.

Anlasana, aynayı falan ayırt edemiyor mercekleri. Lönk diye kendilerini görüyorlar. Böyle, olduğu gibi...

Nedenmiş peki? Ne gerek varmış?

Ne bileyim be abicim! Ahiret soruları gibi.

Birasına bakarak dalıp gitti. Sonra masaya abanarak arkadaşına iyice yaklaştı. Bulanık, bir tünelin ucundaki biri gibi, şekli şemalı belirsiz bir adam.

Ben seni nereden tanıyorum ki ulan? Kimsin sen?

Belleği makineden çıkardılar. İki kişiydiler. Soruşturmadan sorumlu memurlar.

─ Baştan mı başlıyoruz, diye sordu belleği elinde tutan ilk memur.

─ Bir kere daha deneyelim ama bu sefer direkt aynayı sorarak başla, diye cevapladı ikinci memur.

─ Bence de. Yeterince düzgün çalışıyor.

Simülasyon yüklenirken, ayakta, biraz arkada duran ve alnını kaşıyan ikinci memur sormaktan kendisini alamadı:

─ Bu androidleri niye böyle bir olay yerine göndermişler ki? Belli tost olacakları. İsraf. Gidip biz baksak aynayı kırıp delilleri mahvetmek zorunda da kalmazlar.

Diğer memur sandalyesinde hafifçe dönecek oldu, o sırada soruyu bilgisayarın hoparlöründen teknisyen cevapladı.

Hangi işimizde bir yamukluk yok ki be abi.

---

Ama bir son değildi. Üstlerindeki tüm illüzyon dağıldığında ve çıplak, cinsiyetsiz, birbirinin aynı bedenleriyle kaldıklarında sıra dünyaya gelmişti.

Yere düştüler. Elleri -bütün bedeni gibi siyah turmalinden, boğumları çelikten- yere değdiği anda, metronun zemini dağıldı.

Yerdeki karolar öncesinde beyazdı ve çok parlaktı. Tepelerindeki floresan, ışığını olduğu gibi yansıtıyor, tek bir lekenin olmadığı ve tek bir tozun uçmadığı istasyonu aydınlatıyorlardı.

Duvarlara duyurular asılmıştı. Örneğin, yarın akşam kültür merkezinde 20.00’da başlayacak bir tekno blues festivalinin cıvıl cıvıl afişi vardı. Onun yanında daha geniş, sarı puntolu harflerle yazılmış, yatay siyah kesiklerle çerçevesi çizilmiş, bir platformdan düşen çöp adamın bulunduğu “Dikkat! Sarı bandı geçmeyin!” uyarısı. Biraz ilerisinde günlük resmi gazete, onun ilerisinde bir aksiyon filminin ve başka bir romantik komedi filminin afişleri, yapılacakların ve yapılmayacakların söylendiği küçük puntolu çeşitli duyurular... Duvar uzayıp giden bir panoydu. On, on beş metrede bir tekrarlanıyordu.

Tüm istasyonun eni yüz metre kadar. Genişliği on metre civarı.

Önlerinde, açık kapısından o mendebur aynanın gözüktüğü vagon duruyordu. Metro, istasyona sığmayacak kadar uzundu. Bir kılıcın keskinliğiyle uzanıyor ama yer yer vagonların ek yerleriyle bölünüyordu.

Hiçbir vagonda pencere olmadığı için metronun içi, içlerindekiler meçhuldü.

Sonrasında karolar zerrelerine ayrılarak yükseldi. Floresanın ışığında her yeri toza boğdular ve ortalığı gri bir sisin altına gömdüler. Çok kısa bir an. Afişleri dalgalandırmadılar. Dalgalandırmaya vakitleri olmadı. Yerlerinden söküp aldılar en fazla. Işık birkaç kere sönüp yanarak direndi. Son kez söndüğünde bir daha geri gelmedi.

Yine de etraf aydınlıktı. Kırmızı, her yere eşit dağılan soluk bir ışıkla.

Yer tamamen tele dönüşmüştü. Altında çapraz hatlarla desteklenmiş demir bir iskelet. Işık birkaç metreden daha fazla aşağıya uzanamıyordu. Sonsuzluğa giden bir uçurum.

Duvarın yerini aynı teller ve demir iskelet almıştı. Arkasında, birbirine vidalarla tutturulmuş demir plakalardan oluşan, üstünden geçen boruların ek yerlerinden bazen ince buharların çıktığı ve bir süre asılı kaldıktan sonra ağır, yağlı bir havayla sürüklendiği bir koridor.

Diğer tarafta paslanmış, pencerelerindeki camlar kırıldığı için demir plakalarla kapatılmış külüstür bir metro. Kapının karşısındaki aynadan her şey olduğu gibi yansıyordu.

---

Bir konteynırın içini andıran bir evde, gerçi gayet de birbirine eklenmiş konteynırlardan oluşan bir şehirde “andıran” demek doğru olmayacağı için düpedüz bir konteynırın içinde, masaya mum görüntüsü vermek için koyulmuş, yarı katı yağ atıklarından şekillendirilmiş kütleleri yakmayı deniyordu. Kafasında hayvan kıllarından yapılmış grili siyahlı bir peruk. Aynı kıllardan kendisine gür bir bıyık da yapmıştı.

Üstünde mavi çöp poşetlerinden yapılmış, kravatlı, şık bir takım.

Masanın ayakları yerine oradan buradan çıkmış parçalar konulmuştu: bir arabanın şaft mili, üst üste konulmuş ve üstünde yazı okunamayan tenekeler, boş kitaplar, boş gazete balyaları... Hiçbir şeye yazı yazılmıyordu, gerek yoktu da zaten çünkü merkez veri bankası onları fark ettirmeden, merceklerden giren veriyi sentezleyerek insanlar için dolduruyordu. Yani, androidler için. Farklı şekilde isimlendirmek bir fark yaratacaksa.

Onların mercekleri için değil. Bağlantıları çok önceden kopmuştu.

─ Hayatım, sofra hazır, diye bağırdı yatak odasındaki karısına.

Sofrada tabak yerine düz, bardak yerine bükülmüş, çatal ve bıçak yerine sivriltilmiş plakalar.

Karısı salonun kapısında durakladı ve ancak kulaklarına kadar uzanan, kocasınınkine benzeyen, cansız, ölü hayvanların kıllarından ibaret peruğunu eliyle düzeltti. Dudağını, daha doğrusu dudağının olması gereken yeri koyu kırmızı bir yağ tabakasıyla renklendirmeyi denemişti. Biraz da yanaklarına sürmüştü.

─ Nasıl olmuş, diye sordu.

Sesi tek düzeydi ama hafif bir neşe olduğunu hissettiğinize yemin edebilirdiniz.

Üzerinde, çöp poşetlerinin içini yazısız gazete kağıtlarıyla doldurarak yaptığı iki parça giysi.

─ Çok güzelsin, diyerek kravatını düzeltti kocası.

─ Sen de öylesin, sevgilim.

Yaklaşıp kocasını öptü. Kocası da onu. Sonra nazikçe elinden tutarak, sandalyesini geriye çekerek oturmasına yardım etti.

Sofrada yemek niyetine hiçbir şey yoktu. Gerek de yoktu zaten.

Konteynırın kapısı gürültüyle tekmelenip içeri iki memur girene kadar birbirlerine öyküler anlattılar. O gün neler yaptıklarını. İşten erken çıkıp yemyeşil çimenlerde gezdiklerini, uçurtma uçurduklarını, kadının nasıl o elbiseyi bulmak için saatlerce gezip yorulduğunu, kocasının kısa süreliğine işe dönüp nasıl başarılı bir hamleyle yaşanan krizi çözdüğünü ve kadının yanına döndükten sonra, alışveriş merkezinde oturdukları yeni dondurmacının dondurmalarının ne kadar lezzetli olduğunu, boğazlarının ağrımasından korktuklarını...

Akşam film izleyebilirlerdi, televizyonda -boş ve mat bir plaka- güzel bir film oynayacaktı.

İki memur. Çıplak bedenleriyle birbirinin aynı. Ellerindeki silahları onlara doğrultmuşlardı. Mum ışığında, tertemiz bir örtünün serili olduğu masada, bardaklarında şaraplarla oturan ve henüz sofranın ortasındaki hindiye dokunmamış çifti gördüklerinde bocaladılar.

Hiç de androidlere bilinçli olarak zarar verebilecek gibi gözükmüyorlardı.

─ Sessiz kalma hakkına sahipsiniz, diye bağırdı içeri giren ikinci memur. Söylediğiniz her şey...

Cümlesini bitiremedi. Yatak odasındaki, masanın üzerinden gördüğü o şey, onunla aynı hareketleri yapan android, yoksa, bir aynadaki yansıması mıydı?

Bütün illüzyon o anda dağılmaya başladı.

Not: Bu öykü ilk olarak 2020 yılında Esrarengiz Hikâyeler'de yayımlanmıştır.

@ 378562cd:a6fc6773

Top 20 U.S. Cryptocurrency Headlines:

1. SEC Reverses Crypto Accounting Rule, Easing Bank Participation The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overturned guidance that previously treated digital tokens as liabilities on bank balance sheets. This reversal is expected to facilitate banks in offering cryptocurrency custody services without facing significant penalties.

   ft.com

2. President Trump Signs Executive Order to Bolster Crypto Industry. President Donald Trump has issued an executive order titled "Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology," aiming to position the U.S. as a global leader in the digital asset market. The order includes the creation of a task force to propose new crypto regulations and explore the establishment of a national digital asset stockpile.

   Investor's Business Daily

3. Crypto Markets React to New Regulatory Initiatives. Following the administration's recent policy moves, the cryptocurrency market experienced a dip, with Bitcoin stabilizing around $105,000. The creation of a task force to propose new crypto regulations has introduced uncertainty, leading to profit-taking among investors.

   reuters.com

4. Industry Celebrates Anticipated Deregulation Amid Caution. The cryptocurrency community is optimistic about the administration's supportive stance, including proposals for a U.S. Bitcoin reserve. However, experts caution that increased government endorsement could expose the financial system to significant risks if the market faces downturns.

   ft.com

5. White House Appoints David Sacks as Crypto and AI Advisor. The administration has appointed tech entrepreneur David Sacks as the White House's cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence advisor. Sacks will lead the newly formed Presidential Task Force on Digital Asset Markets, focusing on developing regulatory frameworks and exploring the creation of a national Bitcoin reserve.

   Barron's

6. Bitcoin Price Surges to All-Time High Amid Policy Shifts. Bitcoin has reached a record high of $109,000, driven by increased interest following endorsements from President Trump and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. The launch of cryptocurrencies associated with both Trump and former First Lady Melania Trump has further fueled market enthusiasm.

   The Times & The Sunday Times

7. Financial Institutions Show Renewed Interest in Crypto Services. Major financial firms, including Charles Schwab, are exploring deeper engagement in the crypto market following recent regulatory changes. Traditional banks are now better positioned to offer cryptocurrency custody services, reflecting a shift towards mainstream adoption.

   ft.com

8. Congressional Leaders Express Concerns Over Rapid Crypto Expansion. Some lawmakers have raised concerns about the swift regulatory changes favoring the cryptocurrency industry. They caution that rapid deregulation could lead to increased market volatility and potential risks to the broader financial system.

   reuters.com

9. Crypto-Related Crimes Prompt Calls for Enhanced Security Measures. The recent kidnapping and assault of Ledger co-founder David Balland have highlighted the risks associated with the crypto industry. Security experts advise individuals involved in cryptocurrency to exercise discretion regarding their personal wealth and implement robust security protocols.

   The Times & The Sunday Times

10. Stablecoin Development Encouraged Under New Executive Order. The administration's executive order promotes the development of dollar-backed stablecoins for global use, aiming to enhance the U.S. dollar's presence in the digital asset space while prohibiting the establishment of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) in the U.S.

    Investor's Business Daily

11. Crypto Education Initiatives Launched to Foster Public Understanding. In response to the growing interest in digital assets, educational programs are being developed to inform the public about cryptocurrency investment risks and opportunities, aiming to promote responsible participation in the market.

12. Tech Companies Explore Blockchain Integration Amid Regulatory Clarity. With the recent regulatory developments, technology firms are increasingly considering blockchain integration into their operations, anticipating that clearer guidelines will support innovation in the sector.

13. Crypto Taxation Policies Under Review Following Executive Order. The Treasury Department is reviewing existing cryptocurrency taxation policies to align with the new executive order, potentially leading to revised guidelines that could impact investors and businesses.

14. Investment Funds Increase Crypto Holdings Amid Policy Support. Investment funds are bolstering their cryptocurrency portfolios, encouraged by the administration's supportive policies and the SEC's reversal of restrictive accounting rules.

15. Public-Private Partnerships Form to Advance Blockchain Research. New collaborations between government agencies and private companies are emerging to advance blockchain research and development, aiming to maintain the U.S.'s competitive edge in digital financial technologies.

16. Crypto Mining Operations Expand in the U.S.Cryptocurrency mining firms are expanding their operations domestically, attracted by the favorable regulatory environment and potential incentives outlined in recent policy initiatives.

17. Consumer Protection Agencies Advocate for Crypto Awareness. Consumer protection agencies are launching campaigns to raise awareness about the risks associated with cryptocurrency investments, emphasizing the importance of due diligence.

18. State Governments Explore Local Crypto Regulations. In light of federal initiatives, state governments are examining their regulatory frameworks concerning cryptocurrencies to ensure alignment and address local concerns.

19. Academic Institutions Introduce Cryptocurrency Courses. Universities and colleges are adding cryptocurrency and blockchain courses to their curricula, preparing students for careers in the evolving digital asset landscape.

20. Crypto Exchanges Enhance Compliance Measures. Cryptocurrency exchanges are strengthening their compliance protocols in anticipation of forthcoming regulatory recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on Digital Asset Markets.

Top 5 Worldwide Cryptocurrency Headlines:

1. Global Banks Anticipate U.S. Regulatory Changes. International banks are closely monitoring the U.S. regulatory shifts, assessing the potential global impact on cryptocurrency custody services and market participation.

2. European Union Debates Crypto Regulatory Framework. The European Union is engaging in discussions to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, aiming to balance innovation with consumer protection.

3. Asian Markets React to U.S. Crypto Policy Developments\ Cryptocurrency markets across Asia, including Japan and South Korea, are seeing increased trading activity following the U.S. administration's supportive stance on digital assets. Investors are optimistic about the ripple effects on the global crypto ecosystem.

4. India Announces Plans for Blockchain-Based Voting System\ The Indian government has unveiled plans to pilot a blockchain-based voting system aimed at enhancing election security and transparency. This initiative is part of India's broader efforts to explore blockchain technology in governance.

5. African Nations Embrace Bitcoin for Cross-Border Payments\ Several African countries are increasingly using Bitcoin to facilitate cross-border payments, citing its efficiency and reduced transaction costs. This trend reflects the growing adoption of cryptocurrencies in regions with limited access to traditional financial services.

@ 105cfd51:7985e537

Bong88 là một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến nổi bật, được thiết kế để mang đến cho người dùng những trải nghiệm thú vị và phong phú. Với giao diện dễ sử dụng và thân thiện, Bong88 tạo ra một không gian giải trí mượt mà, giúp người dùng thư giãn và tận hưởng những khoảnh khắc giải trí tuyệt vời ngay tại nhà. Nền tảng này không chỉ cung cấp những hoạt động giải trí đơn giản mà còn mang lại những trải nghiệm mới mẻ và đầy sáng tạo, thu hút người dùng tham gia và khám phá.

Một trong những điểm mạnh của BONG88 chính là sự đa dạng trong các hoạt động giải trí mà nền tảng này cung cấp. Từ các trò chơi thử thách kỹ năng đến các hoạt động giải trí nhập vai, Bong88 luôn đảm bảo rằng người dùng sẽ tìm thấy những trải nghiệm phù hợp với sở thích và nhu cầu của mình. Nền tảng này liên tục cập nhật và đổi mới nội dung để người dùng luôn có thể khám phá những điều mới mẻ và thú vị. Sự đa dạng này không chỉ giúp người dùng cảm thấy hào hứng mà còn tạo ra một môi trường giải trí phong phú và không bao giờ nhàm chán.

Bong88 cũng đặc biệt chú trọng đến chất lượng dịch vụ và sự hài lòng của người dùng. Nền tảng này luôn nỗ lực cải thiện và nâng cao các tính năng để mang lại một trải nghiệm giải trí tốt nhất. Các dịch vụ hỗ trợ người dùng luôn sẵn sàng và nhanh chóng, giúp giải quyết mọi thắc mắc và vấn đề mà người dùng có thể gặp phải trong quá trình sử dụng. Với đội ngũ chăm sóc khách hàng chuyên nghiệp, Bong88 cam kết mang đến dịch vụ chất lượng cao và sự hài lòng tuyệt đối cho người dùng, tạo ra một cộng đồng giải trí thân thiện và đáng tin cậy.

Bên cạnh đó, Bong88 cũng rất chú trọng đến vấn đề bảo mật và an toàn của người dùng. Nền tảng này sử dụng các công nghệ bảo mật tiên tiến để bảo vệ thông tin cá nhân và đảm bảo rằng mọi giao dịch đều được thực hiện một cách an toàn và bảo mật. Mọi hoạt động trên nền tảng đều được giám sát chặt chẽ để đảm bảo không có sự cố hay rủi ro liên quan đến bảo mật. Người dùng có thể yên tâm tham gia vào các hoạt động giải trí mà không phải lo lắng về vấn đề bảo mật.

Cuối cùng, Bong88 không chỉ là một nền tảng giải trí mà còn là một cộng đồng gắn kết và năng động. Nền tảng này tạo ra một không gian để người dùng có thể kết nối và giao lưu với những người có cùng sở thích. Bong88 luôn nỗ lực mang đến những trải nghiệm giải trí thú vị, an toàn và hòa nhập cho tất cả mọi người. Với sự kết hợp giữa chất lượng dịch vụ, bảo mật cao và nội dung phong phú, Bong88 đã xây dựng được lòng tin vững chắc từ cộng đồng người dùng, trở thành một lựa chọn hàng đầu trong ngành giải trí trực tuyến.

@ 105cfd51:7985e537

Daga là một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến nổi bật, cung cấp cho người dùng những trải nghiệm giải trí độc đáo và phong phú. Với giao diện dễ sử dụng và thiết kế hiện đại, Daga mang đến cho người dùng một không gian giải trí tuyệt vời, giúp họ thư giãn và tận hưởng những giây phút vui vẻ ngay tại nhà. Nền tảng này không chỉ đáp ứng nhu cầu giải trí mà còn mang lại những trải nghiệm mới mẻ và đầy sáng tạo, giúp người dùng luôn cảm thấy hào hứng và thú vị khi tham gia.

Một trong những điểm mạnh của Daga là sự đa dạng trong các hoạt động giải trí mà nền tảng này cung cấp. Từ các trò chơi thử thách kỹ năng đến những trải nghiệm nhập vai, Daga luôn cập nhật và đổi mới nội dung để người dùng có thể khám phá những hoạt động mới mẻ và thú vị. Nền tảng này không chỉ thu hút người dùng với các trò chơi đầy thử thách mà còn mang đến những trải nghiệm sáng tạo và lôi cuốn. Daga cam kết mang lại cho người dùng những giây phút giải trí đầy hấp dẫn và không bao giờ nhàm chán.

DAGA cũng đặc biệt chú trọng đến chất lượng dịch vụ và sự hài lòng của người dùng. Nền tảng này luôn nỗ lực cải thiện và nâng cao các tính năng để đảm bảo rằng người dùng có thể trải nghiệm những dịch vụ tốt nhất. Các dịch vụ hỗ trợ người dùng luôn sẵn sàng và nhanh chóng, giúp giải quyết mọi thắc mắc và vấn đề mà người dùng có thể gặp phải trong quá trình sử dụng. Daga cam kết mang lại dịch vụ chất lượng cao và sự hài lòng tuyệt đối cho người dùng, từ đó tạo ra một cộng đồng giải trí thân thiện và gắn kết.

Bên cạnh đó, Daga cũng rất chú trọng đến vấn đề bảo mật và an toàn của người dùng. Nền tảng này sử dụng các công nghệ tiên tiến và biện pháp bảo vệ nghiêm ngặt để đảm bảo rằng thông tin cá nhân của người dùng luôn được bảo mật tuyệt đối. Mọi giao dịch và hoạt động trên nền tảng đều được thực hiện trong môi trường an toàn và đáng tin cậy. Daga cam kết bảo vệ quyền lợi của người dùng, giúp họ yên tâm tận hưởng các hoạt động giải trí mà không lo ngại về sự cố hay rủi ro liên quan đến bảo mật.

Cuối cùng, Daga luôn hướng tới việc xây dựng một cộng đồng giải trí trực tuyến năng động và sáng tạo. Nền tảng này không chỉ là nơi để người dùng tìm kiếm niềm vui mà còn là một không gian để kết nối và giao lưu với những người có cùng sở thích. Daga luôn nỗ lực mang đến những trải nghiệm giải trí mới mẻ, an toàn và hòa nhập cho tất cả mọi người. Với sự kết hợp giữa chất lượng dịch vụ, bảo mật cao và nội dung phong phú, Daga đã xây dựng được lòng tin vững chắc từ cộng đồng người dùng, trở thành một lựa chọn hàng đầu trong ngành giải trí trực tuyến.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

| Parameters | Dry Mead | Medium Mead | Sweet Mead | |------------|-----------|-------------|------------| | Honey | 2 lbs (900 grams) | 3 lbs (1.36 kg) | 4 lbs (1.81 kg) | | Yeast | ~0.07 oz (2 grams) | ~0.08 oz (2.5 grams) | ~0.10 oz (3 grams) | | Fermentation | ~4 weeks | 4 to 6 weeks | 6 to 8 weeks | | Racking | Fortnight or later | 1 month or after | ~2 months and after | | Specific Gravity | <1.010 | ~1.01 to ~1.025 | >1.025 |

@ 32e18276:5c68e245

I’m going to be on an ordinals panels as one of the people who is counter arguing the claim that they are good for bitcoin. I decided to brush up on the technicals on how inscriptions work. I am starting to see luke’s perspective on how it is exploiting a loophole in bitcoin’s anti-data-spam mechanisms.

Storing data in Bitcoin, the “standard” way

The standard way you add “data” to bitcoin is by calling the OP_RETURN opcode. Bitcoin devs noticed that people were storing data (like the bitcoin whitepaper) in the utxo set via large multisig transactions. The problem with this is that this set is unprunable and could grow over time. OP_RETURN outputs on the other-hand are provably prunable and don’t add to utxo bloat.

Here’s an excerpt from the march 2014 0.9.0 release notes that talks about this:

On OP_RETURN: There was been some confusion and misunderstanding in the community, regarding the OP_RETURN feature in 0.9 and data in the blockchain. This change is not an endorsement of storing data in the blockchain. The OP_RETURN change creates a provably-prunable output, to avoid data storage schemes – some of which were already deployed – that were storing arbitrary data such as images as forever-unspendable TX outputs, bloating bitcoin’s UTXO database. Storing arbitrary data in the blockchain is still a bad idea; it is less costly and far more efficient to store non-currency data elsewhere.

Much of the work on bitcoin core has been focused on making sure the system continues to function in a decentralized way for its intended purpose in the presence of people trying to abuse it for things like storing data. Bitcoin core has always discouraged this, as it is not designed for storage of images and data, it is meant for moving digital coins around in cyberspace.

To help incentive-align people to not do stupid things, OP_RETURN transactions were not made non-standard, so that they are relayable by peers and miners, but with the caveat:

1. They can only push 40 bytes (later increased to 80,83, I’m guessing to support larger root merkle hashes since that is the only sane usecase for op_return)

Bitcoin also added an option called -datacarriersize which limits the total number of bytes from these outputs that you will relay or mine.

Why inscriptions are technically an exploit

Inscriptions get around the datacarriersize limit by disguising data as bitcoin script program data via OP_PUSH inside OP_IF blocks. Ordinals do not use OP_RETURN and are not subjected to datacarriersize limits, so noderunners and miners currently have limited control over the total size of this data that they wish to relay and include in blocks. Luke’s fork of bitcoin-core has some options to fight this spam, so hopefully we will see this in core sometime soon as well.

Inscriptions are also taking advantage of features in segwit v1 (witness discount) and v2/taproot (no arbitrary script size limit). Each of these features have interesting and well-justified reasons why they were introduced.

The purpose of the witness discount was to make it cheaper to spend many outputs which helps the reduction of the utxo set size. Inscriptions took advantage of this discount to store monke jpegs disguised as bitcoin scripts. Remember, bitcoin is not for storing data, so anytime bitcoin-devs accidentally make it cheap and easy to relay data then this should be viewed as an exploit. Expect it to be fixed, or at least provide tools to noderunners for fighting this spam.

Where do we go from here

The interesting part of this story is that people seem to attach value to images stored on the bitcoin blockchain, and they are willing to pay the fee to get it in the block, so non-ideologic miners and people who don’t care about the health and decentralization of bitcoin are happy to pay or collect the fee and move on.

Data should not get a discount, people should pay full price if they want to store data. They should just use op_return and hashes like opentimestamps or any other reasonable protocol storing data in bitcoin.

After going through this analysis I’ve come to the opinion that this is a pretty bad data-spam exploit and bitcoin devs should be working on solutions. Ideological devs like luke who actually care about the health and decentralization of the network are and I’m glad to see it.

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

A place where we Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

So stay a while and listen.

🚨Don't forget to check out the pinned items in the territory homepage! You can always find the latest weeklies there!🚨

🚨Subscribe to the territory to ensure you never miss a post! 🚨

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/862063

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

Hackathon 总结

EDU Chain Hackathon: Semester 1 在2024年圆满结束，活动参与人数众多，成果显著。该活动由 Open Campus 主办，共有 725 个项目参赛，吸引了 4,672 名开发者，奖池达 $200,000。经过评选，共有 20 位获奖者分别来自两个主要类别——DeFi 和基础设施，还有 12 位获奖者来自其他四个类别。

评审标准重点关注生态系统影响、创新性和可扩展性，由 Animoca Brands 和 Open Campus 等组织的代表进行评估。获奖者可加入 Open Campus 加速器计划中的 EDU Chain 开发者群，获得 DAO 提案支持，并通过 Forbes 等平台获得媒体曝光。他们还可以加入一个专门的 Discord 频道与评委交流，每个项目有高达 $100,000 的潜在资金支持机会。

此次 hackathon 是 EDU Chain 上去中心化应用程序开发的关键事件。EDU Chain 是 Arbitrum Orbit Stack 内的一个 L3 Rollup，旨在加强基于区块链的教育解决方案。来自 ForbesWeb3 和 ApeCoin 等公司的赞助突显出区块链在教育行业中的日益融合，加强了民主化教育的更广泛使命。

Hackathon 获奖者

DeFi 奖项获奖者

• SailFish veDEX：这个去中心化交易所建立在 Open Campus 上，利用 Vote-Escrow 和 (3,3) 博弈论与用户分享交易费用。它提高了收益机会，运行在 Sepolia 网络上。
• Blend-lending protocol for educhain：提供以 $EDU 代币为抵押的教育贷款，提供诸如 USDT 的稳定资产。该协议采用由 $EDU 代币持有者治理的安全透明智能合约。
• Streambill：利用 Sablier 协议和 Request Network 为自由职业者提供实时支付，增强发票和支付清晰度。
• stakedu：一个 $EDU 代币的抵押平台，提供奖励和动态分配管理，增加 EDUchain 生态系统的参与度。
• P2P Lending and Borrowing Protocol for Ordinals Powered by EduChain：提供以 NFT 为抵押的贷款，利息最高达 350%，其智能合约可跨网络结合 Ordinals。

基础设施 dApps 奖项获奖者

• create-edu-dapp：为 EduChain 上的 dApp 开发提供 CLI 工具，支持 Next.js、Hardhat 和 Foundry，以便进行无缝测试和部署。
• poapedu：将学习认证集中化为链上 NFT，借助全面的技能映射帮助职业规划。
• Grasp Academy：此基于区块链的 LMS 通过 NFT 奖励用户参与，整合教育融资和个性化 AI 工具。
• Blitz Protocol：提供实时区块链数据访问、可扩展后端的数据信息解决方案，专为 Open Campus 网络优化。
• ThrustPad ILO ：一个去中心化的筹资平台，利用代币锁定和抵押机制支持教育技术计划。

EduFi 奖项获奖者

• Campus Arc BETA：为全球学生连接的协作在线学习，专注于基于项目的体验，结合 Web2 和 Web3 框架。
• DcodeBlock：一个游戏化平台，帮助开发者通过任务和 AI 增强学习从 Web2 过渡到 Web3。
• Course3：一个去中心化的课程市场平台，采用 Web3 技术在课程之间实现安全验证。
• CourseCast：管理教育广告活动，提供访问者分析工具，利用 Edu 代币和零知识证明进行验证。
• Vault：提供小额费用和跨链兼容的教育金融平台，通过区块链促进学费和薪资支付。

Earn 奖项获奖者

• OpenTaskAI：通过区块链支持的市场将 AI 自由职业者与全球机会连接，使用智能合约保障安全。
• [Ludium] Edu Bounty Management System：通过透明的链上合约简化教育悬赏管理的任务验证和支付。
• PRISM: Decentralised Content Ecosystem：将数字内容标记化为 NFT，从而增强创作者和读者的变现和来源可靠性。
• According.Work：自动化开源贡献的奖励分配，通过 GitHub 集成和区块链保障透明度。
• edBank：建立以 EDU 资产支持的稳定币系统，提供灵活的铸币和借款服务。

Learn 奖项获奖者

• Proof of Learn：一个互动的 Web3 学习平台，提供基于区块链的任务及 POAP 奖励，重视实践概念的部署。
• Sorted Wallet：为功能手机用户提供加密超级应用，提供资产存储和转换功能，以增加金融访问。
• DAO UNI 3.0：一个由 DAO 治理的去中心化大学，提供基于代币的课程和互动虚拟环境。
• AI Tutor：通过个性化 AI 导师和 NFT 证书提高教育体验，实现可验证的成就。

其他奖项获奖者

• EDUCHAIN Community Faucet：通过在 Open Campus 上统一 token faucet 简化多平台的代币测试。
• Lore Network：通过基于区块链的凭证和 AI 学习工具将在线内容转化为全球教育中心。
• DDream：设计用于模块化开发的开源 AI 集成游戏引擎，着重于社区所有权。
• LPU Name Service：为管理基于 NFT 的学术凭证提供安全的 Web3 域名服务。
• MusiCoinCity：将区块链与主题音景结合，以促进对环境活动的捐款，确保通过智能合约实现透明。

有关这些项目的更多详细信息，请访问 Dorahacks Hackathon 页面。

关于主办方

Open Campus

Open Campus 是一个由社区驱动的协议，旨在通过去中心化教育决策来赋能教育者、内容创作者、家长和学生。该计划鼓励教育工作者根据学生需求定制教材，创造一个协作的环境。Open Campus 还通过其“Bringing Education On-Chain”计划为全球有影响力的教育者开辟新的金融渠道，将教育与区块链技术相结合，强调学习方法的创新。作为教育技术领域的积极参与者，Open Campus 一直致力于提高全球教育的可及性和有效性。

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

Embarking on the journey of operating your own Lightning node on the Bitcoin Layer 2 network is more than just a tech-savvy endeavor; it's a step into a realm of financial autonomy and cutting-edge innovation. By running a node, you become a vital part of a revolutionary movement that's reshaping how we think about money and digital transactions. This role not only offers a unique perspective on blockchain technology but also places you at the heart of a community dedicated to decentralization and network resilience. Beyond the technicalities, it's about embracing a new era of digital finance, where you contribute directly to the network's security, efficiency, and growth, all while gaining personal satisfaction and potentially lucrative rewards.

In essence, running your own Lightning node is a powerful way to engage with the forefront of blockchain technology, assert financial independence, and contribute to a more decentralized and efficient Bitcoin network. It's an adventure that offers both personal and communal benefits, from gaining in-depth tech knowledge to earning a place in the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency.

Running your own Lightning node for the Bitcoin Layer 2 network can be an empowering and beneficial endeavor. Here are 10 reasons why you might consider taking on this task:

1. Direct Contribution to Decentralization: Operating a node is a direct action towards decentralizing the Bitcoin network, crucial for its security and resistance to control or censorship by any single entity.

2. Financial Autonomy: Owning a node gives you complete control over your financial transactions on the network, free from reliance on third-party services, which can be subject to fees, restrictions, or outages.

3. Advanced Network Participation: As a node operator, you're not just a passive participant but an active player in shaping the network, influencing its efficiency and scalability through direct involvement.

4. Potential for Higher Revenue: With strategic management and optimal channel funding, your node can become a preferred route for transactions, potentially increasing the routing fees you can earn.

5. Cutting-Edge Technological Engagement: Running a node puts you at the forefront of blockchain and bitcoin technology, offering insights into future developments and innovations.

6. Strengthened Network Security: Each new node adds to the robustness of the Bitcoin network, making it more resilient against attacks and failures, thus contributing to the overall security of the ecosystem.

7. Personalized Fee Structures: You have the flexibility to set your own fee policies, which can balance earning potential with the service you provide to the network.

8. Empowerment Through Knowledge: The process of setting up and managing a node provides deep learning opportunities, empowering you with knowledge that can be applied in various areas of blockchain and fintech.

9. Boosting Transaction Capacity: By running a node, you help to increase the overall capacity of the Lightning Network, enabling more transactions to be processed quickly and at lower costs.

10. Community Leadership and Reputation: As an active node operator, you gain recognition within the Bitcoin community, which can lead to collaborative opportunities and a position of thought leadership in the space.

These reasons demonstrate the impactful and transformative nature of running a Lightning node, appealing to those who are deeply invested in the principles of bitcoin and wish to actively shape its future. Jump aboard, and embrace the journey toward full independence. 🐶🐾🫡🚀🚀🚀

@ ed84ce10:cccf4c2a

Hackathon Summary

The EDU Chain Hackathon: Semester 1 concluded with substantial participation and noteworthy outcomes. Hosted by Open Campus, the event featured 725 projects and attracted 4,672 developers, offering a $200,000 prize pool. Twenty winners were selected across two primary categories—DeFi and Infrastructure—and an additional 12 winners were chosen from four other categories.

Judging criteria focused on ecosystem impact, innovation, and scalability, with evaluations conducted by representatives from organizations like Animoca Brands and Open Campus. Winning participants were offered an opportunity to join the EDU Chain Developer Cohort within the Open Campus Accelerator Program, support for DAO proposals, and media exposure through platforms such as Forbes. They also gained access to a dedicated Discord channel with the judges, with potential funding sponsorships reaching $100,000 per project.

This hackathon was a pivotal event for the development of decentralized applications on the EDU Chain, an L3 Rollup within the Arbitrum Orbit Stack, aimed at enhancing blockchain-based educational solutions. Sponsorship from companies like ForbesWeb3 and ApeCoin highlighted the increasing integration of blockchain in the education sector, reinforcing the broader mission of democratizing education.

Hackathon Winners

DeFi Prize Winners

• SailFish veDEX: This decentralized exchange on Open Campus shares trading fees with users, utilizing Vote-Escrow and (3,3) game theory. It improves yield opportunities and operates on the Sepolia network.
• Blend-lending protocol for educhain: Facilitates educational loans backed by $EDU tokens, offering stable assets like USDT. The protocol features secure, transparent smart contracts governed by $EDU token holders.
• Streambill: Enables real-time payments for freelancers using the Sablier protocol and Request Network, enhancing invoicing and payment clarity.
• stakedu: A staking platform for $EDU tokens that offers rewards and dynamic allocation management, boosting engagement within the EDUchain ecosystem.
• P2P Lending and Borrowing Protocol for Ordinals Powered by EduChain: Provides NFT-backed loans with interest up to 350%, supported by smart contracts that integrate Ordinals across networks.

Infrastructure dApps Prize Winners

• create-edu-dapp: Offers a CLI tool for dApp development on EduChain, supporting Next.js, Hardhat, and Foundry to facilitate seamless testing and deployment.
• poapedu: Centralizes learning certifications into on-chain NFTs, aiding in career planning through comprehensive skill mapping.
• Grasp Academy: This blockchain-based LMS rewards user participation with NFTs and incorporates educational financing and personalized AI tools.
• Blitz Protocol: A data indexing solution delivering real-time blockchain data access with a scalable backend tailored for the Open Campus network.
• ThrustPad ILO: A decentralized fundraising platform that utilizes token-locking and staking mechanisms to support educational technology initiatives.

EduFi Prize Winners

• Campus Arc BETA: Connects students globally for collaborative e-learning, focusing on project-based experiences with integrated Web2 and Web3 frameworks.
• DcodeBlock: A gamified platform assisting developers in transitioning from Web2 to Web3 through missions and AI-enhanced learning.
• Course3: A decentralized marketplace for courses that enables direct interaction between creators and students, using Web3 technologies for secure verification of courses.
• CourseCast: Manages educational ad campaigns with tools for visitor analytics, utilizing Edu tokens and zero-knowledge proofs for verification.
• Vault: Provides a financial platform for education with minimal fees and cross-chain compatibility, facilitating tuition and salary payments via blockchain.

Earn Prize Winners

• OpenTaskAI: Connects AI freelancers with global opportunities through a secure blockchain-enabled marketplace using smart contracts.
• [Ludium] Edu Bounty Management System: Streamlines educational bounty management with transparent, on-chain contracts for task verification and payments.
• PRISM: Decentralised Content Ecosystem: Tokenizes digital content as NFTs, thereby enhancing monetization and provenance for creators and readers.
• According.Work: Automates reward distribution for open-source contributions, guaranteeing transparency via GitHub integration and blockchain.
• edBank: Builds a stablecoin system backed by EDU assets, facilitating minting and borrowing for financial flexibility.

Learn Prize Winners

• Proof of Learn: An interactive Web3 learning platform offering blockchain-based quests with POAP rewards and a focus on practical concept deployment.
• Sorted Wallet: Increases financial access for feature phone users with a crypto super app offering asset storage and conversion features.
• DAO UNI 3.0: A DAO-governed decentralized university providing token-based access to courses and interactive virtual environments.
• AI Tutor: Enhances educational experiences through personalized AI tutors and NFT certificates for verifiable achievements.

Miscellaneous Prize Winners

• EDUCHAIN Community Faucet: Simplifies token testing across multiple platforms by unifying token faucets on Open Campus.
• Lore Network: Transforms online content into a global educational hub by using blockchain-secured credentials and AI learning tools.
• DDream: An open-source, AI-integrated gaming engine designed for modular development with a focus on community ownership.
• LPU Name Service: Provides Web3 domain services to securely manage NFT-based academic credentials.
• MusiCoinCity: Combines blockchain with themed soundscapes to facilitate donations for environmental causes, ensuring transparency via smart contracts.

Further details on these projects are available on the Dorahacks Hackathon page.

About the Organizer

Open Campus

Open Campus is a community-driven protocol focused on empowering educators, content creators, parents, and students by decentralizing decision-making in education. The initiative encourages a collaborative environment where educators can customize materials according to students’ needs. Open Campus also introduces new financial avenues for impactful educators globally through its initiative "Bringing Education On-Chain," which combines education with blockchain technology to emphasize innovation in learning methodologies. As an active participant in the education technology sector, Open Campus consistently seeks to enhance educational accessibility and effectiveness worldwide.