@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

DAOs promised decentralization. They offered a system where every member could influence a project's direction, where money and power were transparently distributed, and decisions were made through voting. All of it recorded immutably on the blockchain, free from middlemen.

But something didn’t work out. In practice, most DAOs haven’t evolved into living, self-organizing organisms. They became something else: clubs where participation is unevenly distributed. Leaders remained - only now without formal titles. They hold influence through control over communications, task framing, and community dynamics. Centralization still exists, just wrapped in a new package.

But there's a second, less obvious problem. Crowds can’t create strategy. In DAOs, people vote for what "feels right to the majority." But strategy isn’t about what feels good - it’s about what’s necessary. Difficult, unpopular, yet forward-looking decisions often fail when put to a vote. A founder’s vision is a risk. But in healthy teams, it’s that risk that drives progress. In DAOs, risk is almost always diluted until it becomes something safe and vague.

Instead of empowering leaders, DAOs often neutralize them. This is why many DAOs resemble consensus machines. Everyone talks, debates, and participates, but very little actually gets done. One person says, “Let’s jump,” and five others respond, “Let’s discuss that first.” This dynamic might work for open forums, but not for action.

Decentralization works when there’s trust and delegation, not just voting. Until DAOs develop effective systems for assigning roles, taking ownership, and acting with flexibility, they will keep losing ground to old-fashioned startups led by charismatic founders with a clear vision.

We’ve seen this in many real-world cases. Take MakerDAO, one of the most mature and technically sophisticated DAOs. Its governance token (MKR) holders vote on everything from interest rates to protocol upgrades. While this has allowed for transparency and community involvement, the process is often slow and bureaucratic. Complex proposals stall. Strategic pivots become hard to implement. And in 2023, a controversial proposal to allocate billions to real-world assets passed only narrowly, after months of infighting - highlighting how vision and execution can get stuck in the mud of distributed governance.

On the other hand, Uniswap DAO, responsible for the largest decentralized exchange, raised governance participation only after launching a delegation system where token holders could choose trusted representatives. Still, much of the activity is limited to a small group of active contributors. The vast majority of token holders remain passive. This raises the question: is it really community-led, or just a formalized power structure with lower transparency?

Then there’s ConstitutionDAO, an experiment that went viral. It raised over $40 million in days to try and buy a copy of the U.S. Constitution. But despite the hype, the DAO failed to win the auction. Afterwards, it struggled with refund logistics, communication breakdowns, and confusion over governance. It was a perfect example of collective enthusiasm without infrastructure or planning - proof that a DAO can raise capital fast but still lack cohesion.

Not all efforts have failed. Projects like Gitcoin DAO have made progress by incentivizing small, individual contributions. Their quadratic funding mechanism rewards projects based on the number of contributors, not just the size of donations, helping to elevate grassroots initiatives. But even here, long-term strategy often falls back on a core group of organizers rather than broad community consensus.

The pattern is clear: when the stakes are low or the tasks are modular, DAOs can coordinate well. But when bold moves are needed—when someone has to take responsibility and act under uncertainty DAOs often freeze. In the name of consensus, they lose momentum.

That’s why the organization of the future can’t rely purely on decentralization. It must encourage individual initiative and the ability to take calculated risks. People need to see their contribution not just as a vote, but as a role with clear actions and expected outcomes. When the situation demands, they should be empowered to act first and present the results to the community afterwards allowing for both autonomy and accountability. That’s not a flaw in the system. It’s how real progress happens.

@ c066aac5:6a41a034

I’m drawn to extremities in art. The louder, the bolder, the more outrageous, the better. Bold art takes me out of the mundane into a whole new world where anything and everything is possible. Having grown up in the safety of the suburban midwest, I was a bit of a rebellious soul in search of the satiation that only came from the consumption of the outrageous. My inclination to find bold art draws me to NOSTR, because I believe NOSTR can be the place where the next generation of artistic pioneers go to express themselves. I also believe that as much as we are able, were should invite them to come create here.

My Background: A Small Side Story

My father was a professional gamer in the 80s, back when there was no money or glory in the avocation. He did get a bit of spotlight though after the fact: in the mid 2000’s there were a few parties making documentaries about that era of gaming as well as current arcade events (namely 2007’sChasing GhostsandThe King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters). As a result of these documentaries, there was a revival in the arcade gaming scene. My family attended events related to the documentaries or arcade gaming and I became exposed to a lot of things I wouldn’t have been able to find. The producer ofThe King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters had previously made a documentary calledNew York Dollwhich was centered around the life of bassist Arthur Kane. My 12 year old mind was blown: The New York Dolls were a glam-punk sensation dressed in drag. The music was from another planet. Johnny Thunders’ guitar playing was like Chuck Berry with more distortion and less filter. Later on I got to meet the Galaga record holder at the time, Phil Day, in Ottumwa Iowa. Phil is an Australian man of high intellect and good taste. He exposed me to great creators such as Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Shakespeare, Lou Reed, artists who created things that I had previously found inconceivable.

I believe this time period informed my current tastes and interests, but regrettably I think it also put coals on the fire of rebellion within. I stopped taking my parents and siblings seriously, the Christian faith of my family (which I now hold dearly to) seemed like a mundane sham, and I felt I couldn’t fit in with most people because of my avant-garde tastes. So I write this with the caveat that there should be a way to encourage these tastes in children without letting them walk down the wrong path. There is nothing inherently wrong with bold art, but I’d advise parents to carefully find ways to cultivate their children’s tastes without completely shutting them down and pushing them away as a result. My parents were very loving and patient during this time; I thank God for that.

With that out of the way, lets dive in to some bold artists:

Nicolas Cage: Actor

There is an excellent video by Wisecrack on Nicolas Cage that explains him better than I will, which I will linkhere. Nicolas Cage rejects the idea that good acting is tied to mere realism; all of his larger than life acting decisions are deliberate choices. When that clicked for me, I immediately realized the man is a genius. He borrows from Kabuki and German Expressionism, art forms that rely on exaggeration to get the message across. He has even created his own acting style, which he calls Nouveau Shamanic. He augments his imagination to go from acting to being. Rather than using the old hat of method acting, he transports himself to a new world mentally. The projects he chooses to partake in are based on his own interests or what he considers would be a challenge (making a bad script good for example). Thus it doesn’t matter how the end result comes out; he has already achieved his goal as an artist. Because of this and because certain directors don’t know how to use his talents, he has a noticeable amount of duds in his filmography. Dig around the duds, you’ll find some pure gold. I’d personally recommend the filmsPig, Joe, Renfield, and his Christmas film The Family Man.

Nick Cave: Songwriter

What a wild career this man has had! From the apocalyptic mayhem of his band The Birthday Party to the pensive atmosphere of his albumGhosteen, it seems like Nick Cave has tried everything. I think his secret sauce is that he’s always working. He maintains an excellent newsletter calledThe Red Hand Files, he has written screenplays such asLawless, he has written books, he has made great film scores such asThe Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, the man is religiously prolific. I believe that one of the reasons he is prolific is that he’s not afraid to experiment. If he has an idea, he follows it through to completion. From the albumMurder Ballads(which is comprised of what the title suggests) to his rejected sequel toGladiator(Gladiator: Christ Killer), he doesn’t seem to be afraid to take anything on. This has led to some over the top works as well as some deeply personal works. Albums likeSkeleton TreeandGhosteenwere journeys through the grief of his son’s death. The Boatman’s Callis arguably a better break-up album than anything Taylor Swift has put out. He’s not afraid to be outrageous, he’s not afraid to offend, but most importantly he’s not afraid to be himself. Works I’d recommend include The Birthday Party’sLive 1981-82, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds’The Boatman’s Call, and the filmLawless.

Jim Jarmusch: Director

I consider Jim’s films to be bold almost in an ironic sense: his works are bold in that they are, for the most part, anti-sensational. He has a rule that if his screenplays are criticized for a lack of action, he makes them even less eventful. Even with sensational settings his films feel very close to reality, and they demonstrate the beauty of everyday life. That's what is bold about his art to me: making the sensational grounded in reality while making everyday reality all the more special. Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai is about a modern-day African-American hitman who strictly follows the rules of the ancient Samurai, yet one can resonate with the humanity of a seemingly absurd character. Only Lovers Left Aliveis a vampire love story, but in the middle of a vampire romance one can see their their own relationships in a new deeply human light. Jim’s work reminds me that art reflects life, and that there is sacred beauty in seemingly mundane everyday life. I personally recommend his filmsPaterson,Down by Law, andCoffee and Cigarettes.

NOSTR: We Need Bold Art

NOSTR is in my opinion a path to a better future. In a world creeping slowly towards everything apps, I hope that the protocol where the individual owns their data wins over everything else. I love freedom and sovereignty. If NOSTR is going to win the race of everything apps, we need more than Bitcoin content. We need more than shirtless bros paying for bananas in foreign countries and exercising with girls who have seductive accents. Common people cannot see themselves in such a world. NOSTR needs to catch the attention of everyday people. I don’t believe that this can be accomplished merely by introducing more broadly relevant content; people are searching for content that speaks to them. I believe that NOSTR can and should attract artists of all kinds because NOSTR is one of the few places on the internet where artists can express themselves fearlessly. Getting zaps from NOSTR’s value-for-value ecosystem has far less friction than crowdfunding a creative project or pitching investors that will irreversibly modify an artist’s vision. Having a place where one can post their works without fear of censorship should be extremely enticing. Having a place where one can connect with fellow humans directly as opposed to a sea of bots should seem like the obvious solution. If NOSTR can become a safe haven for artists to express themselves and spread their work, I believe that everyday people will follow. The banker whose stressful job weighs on them will suddenly find joy with an original meme made by a great visual comedian. The programmer for a healthcare company who is drowning in hopeless mundanity could suddenly find a new lust for life by hearing the song of a musician who isn’t afraid to crowdfund their their next project by putting their lighting address on the streets of the internet. The excel guru who loves independent film may find that NOSTR is the best way to support non corporate movies. My closing statement: continue to encourage the artists in your life as I’m sure you have been, but while you’re at it give them the purple pill. You may very well be a part of building a better future.

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Introdução

Uma sociedade não deve ser construída sobre coerção, mas sim sobre associações voluntárias e interações espontâneas entre indivíduos. A sociedade de condomínios privados surge como uma alternativa natural ao modelo atual de centros urbanos, substituindo a imposição centralizada por estruturas baseadas em contratos e livre associação. Cada condomínio é uma unidade autônoma, gerida por aqueles que ali residem, onde os critérios de entrada, as regras internas e o comércio são definidos pelos próprios participantes. Essa estrutura permite que indivíduos se agrupem com base em valores compartilhados, eliminando os conflitos artificiais impostos por estados e legislações homogêneas que não respeitam a diversidade de preferências e estilos de vida.

O objetivo dessa sociedade é simples: permitir que as pessoas vivam de acordo com seus princípios sem interferência externa. Em um mundo onde a coerção estatal distorce incentivos, os condomínios privados oferecem uma alternativa onde a ordem surge do livre mercado e da cooperação voluntária. Os moradores escolhem seus vizinhos, definem suas próprias normas e interagem economicamente conforme suas necessidades e interesses. O modelo elimina a necessidade de um controle central, pois os incentivos derivados do livre mercado levam ao desenvolvimento de comunidades prósperas, onde a reputação e a confiança mútua são mais eficazes do que qualquer imposição estatal. Assim, essa sociedade representa a evolução lógica do conceito de liberdade individual e propriedade privada como pilares fundamentais da ordem social.

Público-Alvo e Identidade

Os condomínios privados refletem o princípio da livre associação, permitindo que indivíduos escolham viver em comunidades alinhadas com seus valores e necessidades sem interferência estatal. Cada condomínio possui uma identidade própria, moldada pelos moradores e seus interesses, criando ambientes onde afinidades culturais, filosóficas ou profissionais são preservadas e incentivadas. Enquanto alguns podem ser voltados para famílias numerosas, oferecendo amplos espaços e infraestrutura adequada, outros podem priorizar solteiros e jovens profissionais, com áreas de coworking e espaços de lazer voltados para networking e socialização. Da mesma forma, comunidades religiosas podem estabelecer seus próprios espaços de culto e eventos, enquanto condomínios para idosos podem ser projetados com acessibilidade e serviços médicos especializados.

Críticos podem afirmar que essa forma de organização resulta em pouca diversidade de habilidades e perspectivas, mas esse argumento ignora a dinâmica das interações humanas e o caráter evolutivo dos intercâmbios entre comunidades. Nenhum condomínio existe isolado; a troca entre diferentes comunidades ocorre naturalmente pelo mercado, incentivando o intercâmbio de conhecimento e serviços entre especialistas de diferentes áreas. Além disso, a ideia de que todos os grupos devem conter uma variedade aleatória de indivíduos desconsidera que a verdadeira diversidade nasce da liberdade de escolha, e não da imposição estatal de convivências forçadas.

Outra crítica possível é que a existência de critérios de entrada pode levar à segregação social. No entanto, essa preocupação deriva da concepção errônea de que todas as comunidades devem ser abertas e incluir qualquer pessoa indiscriminadamente. Porém, a liberdade de associação implica, necessariamente, a liberdade de exclusão. Se um grupo deseja manter determinada identidade cultural, religiosa ou profissional, isso não impede que outros grupos criem suas próprias comunidades conforme seus valores e recursos. Além disso, essa especialização leva a uma concorrência saudável entre condomínios, forçando-os a oferecer melhores condições para atrair moradores. Em vez de uma sociedade homogênea moldada por burocratas, temos um mosaico de comunidades autônomas, onde cada indivíduo pode encontrar ou criar o ambiente que melhor lhe convém.

Autossuficiência e Especialização

A força dos condomínios privados reside na capacidade de seus moradores de contribuírem ativamente para a comunidade, tornando-a funcional e autossuficiente sem a necessidade de intervenções estatais. Diferentes condomínios podem se especializar em áreas específicas ou ter diversos profissionais de diferentes setores, refletindo as competências e interesses de seus residentes. Essa descentralização do conhecimento e da produção permite que cada comunidade desenvolva soluções internas para suas demandas, reduzindo dependências externas e estimulando a prosperidade local.

Os moradores atuam como agentes econômicos, trocando bens e serviços dentro do próprio condomínio e entre diferentes comunidades. Um condomínio voltado para a saúde, por exemplo, pode contar com médicos, enfermeiros e terapeutas que oferecem consultas, aulas e assistência médica particular, remunerados diretamente por seus clientes, sem a intermediação de burocracias. Da mesma forma, um condomínio agrícola pode abrigar agricultores que cultivam alimentos orgânicos, compartilham técnicas de cultivo e comercializam excedentes com outros condomínios, garantindo um fluxo contínuo de suprimentos. Em um condomínio tecnológico, programadores, engenheiros e empreendedores desenvolvem soluções de TI, segurança digital e energia renovável, promovendo a inovação e ampliando as possibilidades de intercâmbio econômico.

A economia interna de cada condomínio se fortalece através de serviços oferecidos pelos próprios moradores. Professores podem ministrar aulas, técnicos podem prestar serviços de manutenção, artesãos podem vender seus produtos diretamente para os vizinhos. O mercado livre e voluntário é o principal regulador dessas interações, garantindo que a especialização surja naturalmente conforme a demanda e a oferta se ajustam. Essa estrutura elimina desperdícios comuns em sistemas centralizados, onde a alocação de recursos se dá por decisões políticas e não pelas necessidades reais da população.

Alguns argumentam que a especialização pode criar bolhas de conhecimento, tornando os condomínios excessivamente dependentes de trocas externas. Contudo, essa preocupação desconsidera a natureza espontânea do mercado, que incentiva a cooperação e o comércio entre comunidades distintas. Nenhum condomínio precisa produzir tudo internamente; ao contrário, a divisão do trabalho e a liberdade de escolha promovem interdependências saudáveis e vantajosas para todos. Assim, cada morador se insere em um ecossistema dinâmico, onde suas habilidades são valorizadas e sua autonomia preservada, sem coerções estatais ou distorções artificiais impostas por planejadores centrais.

Infraestrutura e Sustentabilidade

A solidez de uma sociedade baseada em condomínios privados depende de uma infraestrutura eficiente e sustentável, projetada para reduzir a dependência externa e garantir o máximo de autonomia. Sem um aparato estatal centralizador, cada comunidade deve estruturar seus próprios meios de obtenção de energia, água, alimentação e demais bens essenciais, garantindo que suas operações sejam viáveis a longo prazo. Essa abordagem, longe de ser um entrave, representa a verdadeira inovação descentralizada: um ambiente onde as soluções emergem da necessidade real e da engenhosidade humana, e não de diretrizes burocráticas e regulamentos ineficazes.

Cada condomínio pode investir em tecnologias sustentáveis e autônomas, como energia solar e eólica, reduzindo custos e minimizando a vulnerabilidade às flutuações do mercado energético tradicional. Sistemas de captação e filtragem de água da chuva, bem como a reutilização eficiente dos recursos hídricos, garantem independência em relação a empresas monopolistas e governos que frequentemente administram esse bem de forma ineficaz. Hortas comunitárias e fazendas verticais podem suprir grande parte da demanda alimentar, permitindo que cada condomínio mantenha sua própria reserva de alimentos, aumentando a resiliência contra crises externas e instabilidades de mercado.

Além dos recursos naturais, os espaços compartilhados desempenham um papel fundamental na integração e no fortalecimento dessas comunidades. Bibliotecas, ginásios, creches e salas de aula permitem que o conhecimento e os serviços circulem internamente, criando um ambiente onde a colaboração ocorre de maneira orgânica. A descentralização também se aplica ao uso da tecnologia, plataformas digitais privadas podem ser utilizadas para conectar moradores, facilitar a troca de serviços e produtos, além de coordenar agendamentos e eventos dentro dos condomínios e entre diferentes comunidades.

O Bitcoin surge como uma ferramenta indispensável nesse ecossistema, eliminando a necessidade de bancos estatais ou sistemas financeiros controlados. Ao permitir transações diretas, transparentes e resistentes à censura, o Bitcoin se torna o meio de troca ideal entre os condomínios, garantindo a preservação do valor e possibilitando um comércio ágil e eficiente. Além disso, contratos inteligentes e protocolos descentralizados podem ser integrados para administrar serviços comuns, fortalecer a segurança e reduzir a burocracia, tornando a governança desses condomínios cada vez mais autônoma e imune a intervenções externas.

Alguns podem argumentar que a falta de um aparato estatal para regulamentar a infraestrutura pode resultar em desigualdade no acesso a recursos essenciais, ou que a descentralização completa pode gerar caos e ineficiência. No entanto, essa visão ignora o fato de que a concorrência e a inovação no livre mercado são os maiores motores de desenvolvimento sustentável. Sem monopólios ou subsídios distorcendo a alocação de recursos, a busca por eficiência leva naturalmente à adoção de soluções melhores e mais acessíveis. Condomínios que oferecem infraestrutura de qualidade tendem a atrair mais moradores e investimentos, o que impulsiona a melhoria contínua e a diversificação dos serviços. Em vez de depender de um sistema centralizado falho, as comunidades se tornam responsáveis por sua própria prosperidade, criando uma estrutura sustentável, escalável e adaptável às mudanças do futuro.

Governança e Administração

Em uma sociedade descentralizada, não se deve depender de uma estrutura estatal ou centralizada para regular e tomar decisões em nome dos indivíduos. Cada condomínio, portanto, deve ser gerido de maneira autônoma, com processos claros de tomada de decisão, resolução de conflitos e administração das questões cotidianas. A gestão pode ser organizada por conselhos de moradores, associações ou sistemas de governança direta, conforme as necessidades locais.

Conselhos de Moradores e Processos de Tomada de Decisão

Em muitos casos, a administração interna de um condomínio privado pode ser realizada por um conselho de moradores, composto por representantes eleitos ou indicados pela própria comunidade. A ideia é garantir que as decisões importantes, como planejamento urbano, orçamento, manutenção e serviços, sejam feitas de forma transparente e que os interesses de todos os envolvidos sejam considerados. Isso não significa que a gestão precise ser completamente democrática, mas sim que as decisões devem ser tomadas de forma legítima, transparente e acordadas pela maior parte dos membros.

Em vez de um processo burocrático e centralizado, onde uma liderança impõe suas vontades sobre todos a muitas vezes suas decisões ruins não o afetam diretamente, a gestão de um condomínio privado deve ser orientada pela busca de consenso, onde os próprios gestores sofrerão as consequências de suas más escolhas. O processo de tomada de decisão pode ser dinâmico e direto, com os moradores discutindo e acordando soluções baseadas no mercado e nas necessidades locais, em vez de depender de um sistema impessoal de regulamentação. Além disso, a utilização de tecnologias descentralizadas, como plataformas de blockchain, pode proporcionar maior transparência nas decisões e maior confiança na gestão.

Resolução de Conflitos

A resolução de disputas dentro dos condomínios pode ocorrer de forma voluntária, através de negociação direta ou com o auxílio de mediadores escolhidos pelos próprios moradores por meio de um sistema de reputação. Em alguns casos, podem ser criados mecanismos para resolução de disputas mais formais, com árbitros ou juízes independentes que atuam sem vínculos com o condomínio. Esses árbitros podem ser escolhidos com base em sua experiência ou especialização em áreas como direito, mediação e resolução de conflitos, com uma reputação para zelar. Ao contrário de um sistema judicial centralizado, onde a parte envolvida depende do Estado para resolver disputas, os moradores possuem a autonomia para buscar soluções que atendam aos seus próprios interesses e necessidades. A diversidade de abordagens em um sistema de governança descentralizado cria oportunidades para inovações que atendem diferentes cenários, sem a interferência de burocratas distantes dos próprios problemas que estão "tentando resolver".

Planejamento Urbano e Arquitetura

A questão do design dos condomínios envolve não apenas a estética das construções, mas também a funcionalidade e a sustentabilidade a longo prazo. O planejamento urbano deve refletir as necessidades específicas da comunidade, onde ela decide por si mesma como construir e organizar seu ambiente.\ Arquitetos e urbanistas, muitas vezes moradores especializados, serão responsáveis pela concepção de espaços que atendam a esses critérios, criando ambientes agradáveis, com áreas para lazer, trabalho e convivência que atendam às diversas necessidades de cada grupo.\ Além disso, condomínios com nessecidades semelhantes poderão adotar ideias que deram certo em outros e certamente também dará no seu.

Segurança e Vigilância

Em relação à segurança, cada condomínio pode adotar sistemas de vigilância e proteção que atendam à sua realidade específica. Algumas comunidades podem optar por sistemas de câmeras de segurança, armamento pleno de seus moradores, patrulhamento privado ou até mesmo formas alternativas de garantir a proteção, como vigilância por meio de criptografia e monitoramento descentralizado. A chave para a segurança será a confiança mútua e a colaboração voluntária entre os moradores, que terão a liberdade de definir suas próprias medidas.

Comércio entre Condomínios

A troca de bens e serviços entre as diferentes comunidades é essencial para o funcionamento da rede. Como cada condomínio possui um grau de especialização ou uma mistura de profissionais em diversas áreas, a interdependência entre eles se torna crucial para suprir necessidades e promover a colaboração.

Embora alguns condomínios sejam especializados em áreas como saúde, agricultura ou tecnologia, outros podem ter um perfil mais diversificado, com moradores que atuam em diferentes campos de conhecimento. Por exemplo, um condomínio agrícola pode produzir alimentos orgânicos frescos, enquanto um condomínio de saúde oferece consultas médicas, terapias e cuidados especializados. Já um condomínio tecnológico pode fornecer inovações em software ou equipamentos de energia. Podem haver condomínios universitários que oferecem todo tipo de solução no campo de ensino. Ao mesmo tempo, um condomínio misto, com moradores de diversas áreas, pode oferecer uma variedade de serviços e produtos, tornando-se um centro de intercâmbio de diferentes tipos de expertise.

Essa divisão de trabalho, seja especializada ou diversificada, permite que os condomínios ofereçam o melhor de suas áreas de atuação, ao mesmo tempo em que atendem às demandas de outros. Um condomínio que não se especializa pode, por exemplo, buscar um acordo de troca com um condomínio agrícola para obter alimentos frescos ou com um condomínio tecnológico para adquirir soluções inovadoras.

Embora os condomínios busquem a autossuficiência, alguns recursos essenciais não podem ser produzidos internamente. Itens como minérios para construção, combustíveis ou até mesmo água, em regiões secas, não estão disponíveis em todas as áreas. A natureza não distribui os recursos de maneira uniforme, e a capacidade de produção local pode ser insuficiente para suprir todas as necessidades dos moradores. Isso implica que, para garantir a qualidade de vida e a continuidade das operações, os condomínios precisarão estabelecer relações comerciais e de fornecimento com fontes externas, seja através de mercados, importações ou parcerias com outras comunidades ou fornecedores fora do sistema de condomínios. O comércio intercondomínios e com o exterior será vital para a complementaridade das necessidades, assegurando que os moradores tenham acesso a tudo o que não pode ser produzido localmente.

O sistema econômico entre os condomínios pode ser flexível, permitindo o uso de uma moeda comum (como o Bitcoin) ou até mesmo um sistema de troca direta. Por exemplo, um morador de um condomínio misto pode oferecer serviços de design gráfico em troca de alimentos ou cuidados médicos. Esse tipo de colaboração estimula a produtividade e cria incentivos para que cada condomínio ofereça o melhor de seus recursos e habilidades, garantindo acesso aos bens e serviços necessários.

Relações Externas e Diplomacia

O isolamento excessivo pode limitar o acesso a inovações, avanços culturais e tecnológicos, e até mesmo dificultar o acesso a mercados externos. Por isso, é importante que haja canais de comunicação e métodos de diplomacia para interagir com outras comunidades. Os condomínios podem, por exemplo, estabelecer parcerias com outras regiões, seja para troca de produtos, serviços ou até para inovação. Isso garante que a rede de condomínios não se torne autossuficiente ao ponto de se desconectar do resto do mundo, o que pode resultar em estagnação.

Feiras, mercados intercondomínios e até eventos culturais e educacionais podem ser organizados para promover essas interações. A colaboração entre as comunidades e o exterior não precisa ser baseada em uma troca de dependência, mas sim numa rede de oportunidades que cria benefícios para todas as partes envolvidas. Uma boa reputação atrai novos moradores, pode valorizar propriedades e facilitar parcerias. A diplomacia entre as comunidades também pode ser exercida para resolver disputas ou desafios externos.

A manutenção de boas relações entre condomínios é essencial para garantir uma rede de apoio mútuo eficiente. Essas relações incentivam a troca de bens e serviços, como alimentos, assistência médica ou soluções tecnológicas, além de fortalecer a autossuficiência regional. Ao colaborar em segurança, infraestrutura compartilhada, eventos culturais e até mesmo na resolução de conflitos, os condomínios se tornam mais resilientes e eficientes, reduzindo a dependência externa e melhorando a qualidade de vida dos moradores. A cooperação contínua cria um ambiente mais seguro e harmonioso.

Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano

Cada comunidade pode criar escolas internas com currículos adaptados às especializações de seus moradores. Por exemplo, em um condomínio agrícola, podem ser ensinadas práticas agrícolas sustentáveis, e em um condomínio tecnológico, cursos de programação e inovação. Isso permite que crianças e jovens cresçam em ambientes que reforçam as competências valorizadas pela comunidade.

Além das escolas internas, o conceito de homeschooling pode ser incentivado, permitindo que os pais eduquem seus filhos conforme seus próprios valores e necessidades, com o apoio da comunidade. Esse modelo oferece uma educação mais flexível e personalizada, ao contrário do currículo tradicional oferecido pelo sistema público atual.

Os condomínios universitários também podem surgir, criando ambientes dedicados ao desenvolvimento acadêmico, científico e profissional, onde estudantes vivem e aprendem. Além disso, programas de capacitação contínua são essenciais, com oficinas e cursos oferecidos dentro do condomínio para garantir que os moradores se atualizem com novas tecnologias e práticas.

Para ampliar os horizontes educacionais, os intercâmbios estudantis entre diferentes condomínios podem ser incentivados. Esses intercâmbios não se limitam apenas ao ambiente educacional, mas também se estendem ao aprendizado de práticas de vida e habilidades técnicas. Os jovens de diferentes condomínios podem viajar para outras comunidades para estudar, trabalhar ou simplesmente trocar ideias. Isso pode ocorrer de diversas formas, como programas de curto e longo prazo, através de acordos entre os próprios condomínios, permitindo que os estudantes se conectem com outras comunidades, aprendam sobre diferentes especializações e desenvolvam uma compreensão mais ampla.

Essa abordagem descentralizada permite que cada comunidade desenvolva as competências essenciais sem depender de estruturas limitantes do estado ou sistemas educacionais centralizados. Ao proporcionar liberdade de escolha e personalização, os condomínios criam ambientes propícios ao crescimento humano, alinhados às necessidades e interesses de seus moradores.

---

A sociedade dos condomínios privados propõe uma estrutura alternativa de convivência onde as pessoas podem viver de acordo com seus próprios valores e necessidades. Esses condomínios oferecem um modelo de organização que desafia a centralização estatal, buscando criar comunidades adaptáveis e inovadoras. A liberdade garante que as habilidades necessárias para o sustento e crescimento das comunidades sejam mantidas ao longo do tempo.

A troca de bens, serviços e conhecimentos entre os condomínios, sem a imposição de forças externas, cria uma rede de boas relações, onde o comércio e a colaboração substituem a intervenção estatal. Em vez de depender de sistemas coercitivos, cada condomínio funciona como um microcosmo autônomo que, juntos, formam um ecossistema dinâmico e próspero. Este modelo propõe que, por meio de trocas voluntárias, possamos construir uma sociedade mais saudável. Lembre-se: Ideias e somente ideias podem iluminar a escuridão.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Capitalism is the most effective system for scaling innovation. The pursuit of profit is an incredibly powerful human incentive. Most major improvements to human society and quality of life have resulted from this base incentive. Market competition often results in the best outcomes for all.

That said, some projects can never be monetized. They are open in nature and a business model would centralize control. Open protocols like bitcoin and nostr are not owned by anyone and if they were it would destroy the key value propositions they provide. No single entity can or should control their use. Anyone can build on them without permission.

As a result, open protocols must depend on donation based grant funding from the people and organizations that rely on them. This model works but it is slow and uncertain, a grind where sustainability is never fully reached but rather constantly sought. As someone who has been incredibly active in the open source grant funding space, I do not think people truly appreciate how difficult it is to raise charitable money and deploy it efficiently.

Projects that can be monetized should be. Profitability is a super power. When a business can generate revenue, it taps into a self sustaining cycle. Profit fuels growth and development while providing projects independence and agency. This flywheel effect is why companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple have scaled to global dominance. The profit incentive aligns human effort with efficiency. Businesses must innovate, cut waste, and deliver value to survive.

Contrast this with non monetized projects. Without profit, they lean on external support, which can dry up or shift with donor priorities. A profit driven model, on the other hand, is inherently leaner and more adaptable. It is not charity but survival. When survival is tied to delivering what people want, scale follows naturally.

The real magic happens when profitable, sustainable businesses are built on top of open protocols and software. Consider the many startups building on open source software stacks, such as Start9, Mempool, and Primal, offering premium services on top of the open source software they build out and maintain. Think of companies like Block or Strike, which leverage bitcoin’s open protocol to offer their services on top. These businesses amplify the open software and protocols they build on, driving adoption and improvement at a pace donations alone could never match.

When you combine open software and protocols with profit driven business the result are lean, sustainable companies that grow faster and serve more people than either could alone. Bitcoin’s network, for instance, benefits from businesses that profit off its existence, while nostr will expand as developers monetize apps built on the protocol.

Capitalism scales best because competition results in efficiency. Donation funded protocols and software lay the groundwork, while market driven businesses build on top. The profit incentive acts as a filter, ensuring resources flow to what works, while open systems keep the playing field accessible, empowering users and builders. Together, they create a flywheel of innovation, growth, and global benefit.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Zwei mal drei macht vier, \ widewidewitt und drei macht neune, \ ich mach mir die Welt, \ widewide wie sie mir gefällt. \ Pippi Langstrumpf

Egal, ob Koalitionsverhandlungen oder politischer Alltag: Die Kontroversen zwischen theoretisch verschiedenen Parteien verschwinden, wenn es um den Kampf gegen politische Gegner mit Rückenwind geht. Wer den Alteingesessenen die Pfründe ernsthaft streitig machen könnte, gegen den werden nicht nur «Brandmauern» errichtet, sondern der wird notfalls auch strafrechtlich verfolgt. Doppelstandards sind dabei selbstverständlich inklusive.

In Frankreich ist diese Woche Marine Le Pen wegen der Veruntreuung von EU-Geldern von einem Gericht verurteilt worden. Als Teil der Strafe wurde sie für fünf Jahre vom passiven Wahlrecht ausgeschlossen. Obwohl das Urteil nicht rechtskräftig ist – Le Pen kann in Berufung gehen –, haben die Richter das Verbot, bei Wahlen anzutreten, mit sofortiger Wirkung verhängt. Die Vorsitzende des rechtsnationalen Rassemblement National (RN) galt als aussichtsreiche Kandidatin für die Präsidentschaftswahl 2027.

Das ist in diesem Jahr bereits der zweite gravierende Fall von Wahlbeeinflussung durch die Justiz in einem EU-Staat. In Rumänien hatte Călin Georgescu im November die erste Runde der Präsidentenwahl überraschend gewonnen. Das Ergebnis wurde später annulliert, die behauptete «russische Wahlmanipulation» konnte jedoch nicht bewiesen werden. Die Kandidatur für die Wahlwiederholung im Mai wurde Georgescu kürzlich durch das Verfassungsgericht untersagt.

Die Veruntreuung öffentlicher Gelder muss untersucht und geahndet werden, das steht außer Frage. Diese Anforderung darf nicht selektiv angewendet werden. Hingegen mussten wir in der Vergangenheit bei ungleich schwerwiegenderen Fällen von (mutmaßlichem) Missbrauch ganz andere Vorgehensweisen erleben, etwa im Fall der heutigen EZB-Chefin Christine Lagarde oder im «Pfizergate»-Skandal um die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission Ursula von der Leyen.

Wenngleich derartige Angelegenheiten formal auf einer rechtsstaatlichen Grundlage beruhen mögen, so bleibt ein bitterer Beigeschmack. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob und inwieweit die Justiz politisch instrumentalisiert wird. Dies ist umso interessanter, als die Gewaltenteilung einen essenziellen Teil jeder demokratischen Ordnung darstellt, während die Bekämpfung des politischen Gegners mit juristischen Mitteln gerade bei den am lautesten rufenden Verteidigern «unserer Demokratie» populär zu sein scheint.

Die Delegationen von CDU/CSU und SPD haben bei ihren Verhandlungen über eine Regierungskoalition genau solche Maßnahmen diskutiert. «Im Namen der Wahrheit und der Demokratie» möchte man noch härter gegen «Desinformation» vorgehen und dafür zum Beispiel den Digital Services Act der EU erweitern. Auch soll der Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung verschärft werden – und im Entzug des passiven Wahlrechts münden können. Auf europäischer Ebene würde Friedrich Merz wohl gerne Ungarn das Stimmrecht entziehen.

Der Pegel an Unzufriedenheit und Frustration wächst in großen Teilen der Bevölkerung kontinuierlich. Arroganz, Machtmissbrauch und immer abstrusere Ausreden für offensichtlich willkürliche Maßnahmen werden kaum verhindern, dass den etablierten Parteien die Unterstützung entschwindet. In Deutschland sind die Umfrageergebnisse der AfD ein guter Gradmesser dafür.

[Vorlage Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 0b118e40:4edc09cb

note - i wrote this before the global trade war, back when tariffs only affected China, Mexico, and Canada. But you will still get the gist of it.

During tough economic times, governments have to decide if they should open markets to global trade or protect local businesses with tariffs. The United States has swung between these two strategies, and history shows that the results are never straightforward

Just days ago, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. He framed these tariffs (25% on most Canadian goods, 10% on Canadian energy, 25% on Mexican imports, and 10% on Chinese imports) as a way to protect American industries.

But will they actually help, or could they backfire?

A History of U.S. Tariffs

Many have asked if countries will retaliate against the US. They can and they have. Once upon a time, 60 countries were so pissed off at the US, they retaliated at one go and crushed US dominance over trade.

This was during the Great Depression era in the 1930s when the government passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, placing high taxes on over 20,000 foreign goods. The goal was to protect American jobs, especially American farmers and manufacturers, but it backfired so badly.

Over 60 countries, including Canada, France, and Germany, retaliated by imposing their own tariffs. By 1933, US imports and exports both dropped significantly over 60%, and unemployment rose to 25%.

After President Franklin Roosevelt came to office, he implemented the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 to reverse these policies, calming the world down and reviving trade again.

The economist history of protectionism

The idea of shielding local businesses with tariffs isn’t new or recent. It's been around for a few centuries. In the 16th to 18th centuries, mercantilism encouraged countries to limit imports and boost exports.

In the 18th century, Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, argued that free trade allows nations to specialize in what they do best countering protectionism policies. Friedrich List later challenged Smith's view by stating that developing countries need some protection to grow their “infant” industries which is a belief that still influences many governments today.

But how often do governments truly support startups and new small businesses in ways that create real growth, rather than allowing funds to trickle down to large corporations instead?

In modern times, John Maynard Keynes supported government intervention during economic downturns, while Milton Friedman championed free trade and minimal state interference.

Paul Krugman argued that limited protectionism can help large industries by providing them unfair advantages to become global market leaders. I have deep reservations about Krugman’s take, particularly on its impact or lack thereof in globalizing small businesses.

The debate between free trade and protectionism has existed for centuries. What’s clear is that there is no one-size-fits-all model to this.

The Political Debate - left vs right

Both the left and right have used tariffs but for different reasons. The right supports tariffs to protect jobs and industries, while the left uses them to prevent multinational corporations from exploiting cheap labor abroad.

Neoliberal policies favor free trade, arguing that competition drives efficiency and growth. In the US this gets a little bit confusing as liberals are tied to the left, and free trade is tied to libertarianism which the rights align closely with, yet at present right wing politicians push for protectionism which crosses the boundaries of free-trade.

There are also institutions like the WTO and IMF who advocate for open markets, but their policies often reflect political alliances and preferential treatment - so it depends on what you define as true 'free trade’.

Who Really Benefits from Tariffs?

Most often, tariffs help capital-intensive industries like pharmaceuticals, tech, and defense, while hurting labor-intensive sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and construction.

This worsens inequality as big corporations will thrive, while small businesses and working-class people struggle with rising costs and fewer job opportunities.

I’ve been reading through international trade economics out of personal interest, I'll share some models below on why this is the case

1. The Disruption of Natural Trade

Tariffs disrupt the natural flow of trade. The Heckscher-Ohlin model explains that countries export goods that match their resources like Canada’s natural resource energy or China’s labour intensive textile and electronics. When tariffs block this natural exchange, industries suffer.

A clear example was Europe’s energy crisis during the Russia-Ukraine war. By abruptly cutting themselves off from the supply of Russian energy, Europe scrambled to find alternative sources. In the end, it was the people who had to bear the brunt of skyrocketing prices of energy.

2. Who wins and who loses?

The Stolper-Samuelson theorem helps us understand who benefits from tariffs and who loses. The idea behind it is that tariffs benefit capital-intensive industries, while labor-intensive sectors are hurt.

In the US, small manufacturing industries that rely on low-cost imports on intermediary parts from countries like China and Mexico will face rising costs, making their final goods too expensive and less competitive. This is similar to what happened to Argentina, where subsidies and devaluation of pesos contributed to cost-push inflation, making locally produced goods more expensive and less competitive globally.

This also reminded me of the decline of the US Rust Belt during the 1970s and 1980s, where the outsourcing of labour-intensive manufacturing jobs led to economic stagnation in many regions in the Midwest, while capital-intensive sectors flourished on the coasts. It resulted in significantly high income inequality that has not improved over the last 40 years.

Ultimately the cost of economic disruption is disproportionately borne by smaller businesses and low-skilled workers. At the end of the day, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

3. Delays in Economic Growth

The Rybczynski theorem suggests that economic growth depends on how efficiently nations reallocate their resources toward capital- or labor-intensive industries. But tariffs can distort this transition and progress.

In the 70s and 80s, the US steel industry had competition from Japan and Germany who modernized their production methods, making their steel more efficient and cost-effective. Instead of prioritizing innovation, many U.S. steel producers relied on tariffs and protectionist measures to shield themselves from foreign competition. This helped for a bit but over time, American steelmakers lost global market share as foreign competitors continued to produce better, cheaper steel. Other factors, such as aging infrastructure, and economic shifts toward a service-based economy, further contributed to the industry's decline.

A similar struggle is seen today with China’s high-tech ambitions. Tariffs on Chinese electronics and technology products limit access to key inputs, such as semiconductors and advanced robotics. While China continues its push for automation and AI-driven manufacturing, these trade barriers increase costs and disrupt supply chains, forcing China to accelerate its decoupling from Western markets. This shift could further strengthen alliances within BRICS, as China seeks alternative trade partnerships to reduce reliance on U.S.-controlled financial and technological ecosystems.

Will the current Tariff imposition backfire and isolate the US like it did a hundred years ago or 50 years ago? Is US risking it's position as a trusted economic leader? Only time would tell

The impact of tariff on innovation - or lack thereof

While the short-term impacts of tariffs often include higher consumer prices and job losses, the long-term effects can be even more damaging, as they discourage innovation by increasing costs and reducing competition.

Some historical examples globally : * Nigeria: Blocking import of rice opened up black market out of desperation to survive. * Brazil: Protectionist car policies led to expensive, outdated vehicles. * Malaysia’s Proton: Sheltered by tariffs and cronyism and failed to compete globally. * India (before 1991): Over-regulation limited the industries, until economic reforms allowed for growth. * Soviet Union during Cold War : Substandard products and minimal innovation due to the absence of foreign alternatives, yielding to economic stagnation.

On the flip side, Vietnam has significantly reduced protectionism policies by actively pursuing free trade agreements. This enabled it to become a key manufacturing hub. But Vietnam is not stopping there as it is actively pushing forward its capital-intensive growth by funding entrepreneurs.

The Future of U.S. Tariffs

History has shown that tariffs rarely deliver their intended benefits without unintended consequences. While they may provide temporary relief, they often raise prices, shrink job opportunities, and weaken industries in the long run.

Without a clear strategy for innovation and industrial modernization, the U.S. risks repeating past mistakes of isolating itself from global trade rather than strengthening its economy.

At this point, only time will tell whether these tariffs will truly help Americans or will they, once again, make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Spanien bleibt einer der Vorreiter im europäischen Prozess der totalen Überwachung per Digitalisierung. Seit Mittwoch ist dort der digitale Personalausweis verfügbar. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Regierungs-App, die auf dem Smartphone installiert werden muss und in den Stores von Google und Apple zu finden ist. Per Dekret von Regierungschef Pedro Sánchez und Zustimmung des Ministerrats ist diese Maßnahme jetzt in Kraft getreten.

Mit den üblichen Argumenten der Vereinfachung, des Komforts, der Effizienz und der Sicherheit preist das Innenministerium die «Innovation» an. Auch die Beteuerung, dass die digitale Variante parallel zum physischen Ausweis existieren wird und diesen nicht ersetzen soll, fehlt nicht. Während der ersten zwölf Monate wird «der Neue» noch nicht für alle Anwendungsfälle gültig sein, ab 2026 aber schon.

Dass die ganze Sache auch «Risiken und Nebenwirkungen» haben könnte, wird in den Mainstream-Medien eher selten thematisiert. Bestenfalls wird der Aspekt der Datensicherheit angesprochen, allerdings in der Regel direkt mit dem Regierungsvokabular von den «maximalen Sicherheitsgarantien» abgehandelt. Dennoch gibt es einige weitere Aspekte, die Bürger mit etwas Sinn für Privatsphäre bedenken sollten.

Um sich die digitale Version des nationalen Ausweises besorgen zu können (eine App mit dem Namen MiDNI), muss man sich vorab online registrieren. Dabei wird die Identität des Bürgers mit seiner mobilen Telefonnummer verknüpft. Diese obligatorische fixe Verdrahtung kennen wir von diversen anderen Apps und Diensten. Gleichzeitig ist das die Basis für eine perfekte Lokalisierbarkeit der Person.

Für jeden Vorgang der Identifikation in der Praxis wird später «eine Verbindung zu den Servern der Bundespolizei aufgebaut». Die Daten des Individuums werden «in Echtzeit» verifiziert und im Erfolgsfall von der Polizei signiert zurückgegeben. Das Ergebnis ist ein QR-Code mit zeitlich begrenzter Gültigkeit, der an Dritte weitergegeben werden kann.

Bei derartigen Szenarien sträuben sich einem halbwegs kritischen Staatsbürger die Nackenhaare. Allein diese minimale Funktionsbeschreibung lässt die totale Überwachung erkennen, die damit ermöglicht wird. Jede Benutzung des Ausweises wird künftig registriert, hinterlässt also Spuren. Und was ist, wenn die Server der Polizei einmal kein grünes Licht geben? Das wäre spätestens dann ein Problem, wenn der digitale doch irgendwann der einzig gültige Ausweis ist: Dann haben wir den abschaltbaren Bürger.

Dieser neue Vorstoß der Regierung von Pedro Sánchez ist ein weiterer Schritt in Richtung der «totalen Digitalisierung» des Landes, wie diese Politik in manchen Medien – nicht einmal kritisch, sondern sehr naiv – genannt wird. Ebenso verharmlosend wird auch erwähnt, dass sich das spanische Projekt des digitalen Ausweises nahtlos in die Initiativen der EU zu einer digitalen Identität für alle Bürger sowie des digitalen Euro einreiht.

In Zukunft könnte der neue Ausweis «auch in andere staatliche und private digitale Plattformen integriert werden», wie das Medienportal Cope ganz richtig bemerkt. Das ist die Perspektive.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

Dazu passend:

Nur Abschied vom Alleinfahren? Monströse spanische Überwachungsprojekte gemäß EU-Norm

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

In seinem Beitrag vom 30. März 2025 fragt Henning Rosenbusch auf Telegram angesichts zunehmender digitaler Kontrolle und staatlicher Allmacht:

„Wie soll sich gegen eine solche Tyrannei noch ein Widerstand formieren können, selbst im Untergrund? Sehe ich nicht.“\ (Quelle: t.me/rosenbusch/25228)

Er beschreibt damit ein Gefühl der Ohnmacht, das viele teilen: Eine Welt, in der Totalitarismus nicht mehr mit Panzern, sondern mit Algorithmen kommt. Wo Zugriff auf Geld, Meinungsfreiheit und Teilhabe vom Wohlverhalten abhängt. Der Bürger als kontrollierbare Variable im Code des Staates.\ Die Frage ist berechtigt. Doch die Antwort darauf liegt nicht in alten Widerstandsbildern – sondern in einer neuen Realität.

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

Der Widerstand der Zukunft trägt keinen Tarnanzug. Er ist nicht konspirativ, sondern transparent. Nicht bewaffnet, sondern mathematisch beweisbar. Bitcoin steht nicht am Rand dieser Entwicklung – es ist ihr Fundament. Eine Bastion aus physikalischer Realität, spieltheoretischem Schutz und ökonomischer Wahrheit. Es ist nicht unfehlbar, aber unbestechlich. Nicht perfekt, aber immun gegen zentrale Willkür.

Hier entsteht kein „digitales Gegenreich“, sondern eine dezentrale Renaissance. Keine Revolte aus Wut, sondern eine stille Abkehr: von Zwang zu Freiwilligkeit, von Abhängigkeit zu Selbstverantwortung. Diese Revolution führt keine Kriege. Sie braucht keine Führer. Sie ist ein Netzwerk. Jeder Knoten ein Individuum. Jede Entscheidung ein Akt der Selbstermächtigung.

Weltweit wachsen Freiheits-Zitadellen aus dieser Idee: wirtschaftlich autark, digital souverän, lokal verankert und global vernetzt. Sie sind keine Utopien im luftleeren Raum, sondern konkrete Realitäten – angetrieben von Energie, Code und dem menschlichen Wunsch nach Würde.

Der Globalismus alter Prägung – zentralistisch, monopolistisch, bevormundend – wird an seiner eigenen Hybris zerbrechen. Seine Werkzeuge der Kontrolle werden ihn nicht retten. Im Gegenteil: Seine Geister werden ihn verfolgen und erlegen.

Und während die alten Mächte um Erhalt kämpfen, wächst eine neue Welt – nicht im Schatten, sondern im Offenen. Nicht auf Gewalt gebaut, sondern auf Mathematik, Physik und Freiheit.

Die Tyrannei sieht keinen Widerstand.\ Weil sie nicht erkennt, dass er längst begonnen hat.\ Unwiderruflich. Leise. Überall.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes – \ aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel. \ Friedrich Nietzsche

Erinnern Sie sich an die Horrorkomödie «Scary Movie»? Nicht, dass ich diese Art Filme besonders erinnerungswürdig fände, aber einige Szenen daraus sind doch gewissermaßen Klassiker. Dazu zählt eine, die das Verhalten vieler Protagonisten in Horrorfilmen parodiert, wenn sie in Panik flüchten. Welchen Weg nimmt wohl die Frau in der Situation auf diesem Bild?

Diese Szene kommt mir automatisch in den Sinn, wenn ich aktuelle Entwicklungen in Europa betrachte. Weitreichende Entscheidungen gehen wider jede Logik in die völlig falsche Richtung. Nur ist das hier alles andere als eine Komödie, sondern bitterernst. Dieser Horror ist leider sehr real.

Die Europäische Union hat sich selbst über Jahre konsequent in eine Sackgasse manövriert. Sie hat es versäumt, sich und ihre Politik selbstbewusst und im Einklang mit ihren Wurzeln auf dem eigenen Kontinent zu positionieren. Stattdessen ist sie in blinder Treue den vermeintlichen «transatlantischen Freunden» auf ihrem Konfrontationskurs gen Osten gefolgt.

In den USA haben sich die Vorzeichen allerdings mittlerweile geändert, und die einst hoch gelobten «Freunde und Partner» erscheinen den europäischen «Führern» nicht mehr vertrauenswürdig. Das ist spätestens seit der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, der Rede von Vizepräsident J. D. Vance und den empörten Reaktionen offensichtlich. Große Teile Europas wirken seitdem wie ein aufgescheuchter Haufen kopfloser Hühner. Orientierung und Kontrolle sind völlig abhanden gekommen.

Statt jedoch umzukehren oder wenigstens zu bremsen und vielleicht einen Abzweig zu suchen, geben die Crash-Piloten jetzt auf dem Weg durch die Sackgasse erst richtig Gas. Ja sie lösen sogar noch die Sicherheitsgurte und deaktivieren die Airbags. Den vor Angst dauergelähmten Passagieren fällt auch nichts Besseres ein und so schließen sie einfach die Augen. Derweil übertrumpfen sich die Kommentatoren des Events gegenseitig in sensationslüsterner «Berichterstattung».

Wie schon die deutsche Außenministerin mit höchsten UN-Ambitionen, Annalena Baerbock, proklamiert auch die Europäische Kommission einen «Frieden durch Stärke». Zu dem jetzt vorgelegten, selbstzerstörerischen Fahrplan zur Ankurbelung der Rüstungsindustrie, genannt «Weißbuch zur europäischen Verteidigung – Bereitschaft 2030», erklärte die Kommissionspräsidentin, die «Ära der Friedensdividende» sei längst vorbei. Soll das heißen, Frieden bringt nichts ein? Eine umfassende Zusammenarbeit an dauerhaften europäischen Friedenslösungen steht demnach jedenfalls nicht zur Debatte.

Zusätzlich brisant ist, dass aktuell «die ganze EU von Deutschen regiert wird», wie der EU-Parlamentarier und ehemalige UN-Diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg beobachtet hat. Tatsächlich sitzen neben von der Leyen und Strack-Zimmermann noch einige weitere Deutsche in – vor allem auch in Krisenzeiten – wichtigen Spitzenposten der Union. Vor dem Hintergrund der Kriegstreiberei in Deutschland muss eine solche Dominanz mindestens nachdenklich stimmen.

Ihre ursprünglichen Grundwerte wie Demokratie, Freiheit, Frieden und Völkerverständigung hat die EU kontinuierlich in leere Worthülsen verwandelt. Diese werden dafür immer lächerlicher hochgehalten und beschworen.

Es wird dringend Zeit, dass wir, der Souverän, diesem erbärmlichen und gefährlichen Trauerspiel ein Ende setzen und die Fäden selbst in die Hand nehmen. In diesem Sinne fordert uns auch das «European Peace Project» auf, am 9. Mai im Rahmen eines Kunstprojekts den Frieden auszurufen. Seien wir dabei!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

One of the most common criticisms leveled against nostr is the perceived lack of assurance when it comes to data storage. Critics argue that without a centralized authority guaranteeing that all data is preserved, important information will be lost. They also claim that running a relay will become prohibitively expensive. While there is truth to these concerns, they miss the mark. The genius of nostr lies in its flexibility, resilience, and the way it harnesses human incentives to ensure data availability in practice.

A nostr relay is simply a server that holds cryptographically verifiable signed data and makes it available to others. Relays are simple, flexible, open, and require no permission to run. Critics are right that operating a relay attempting to store all nostr data will be costly. What they miss is that most will not run all encompassing archive relays. Nostr does not rely on massive archive relays. Instead, anyone can run a relay and choose to store whatever subset of data they want. This keeps costs low and operations flexible, making relay operation accessible to all sorts of individuals and entities with varying use cases.

Critics are correct that there is no ironclad guarantee that every piece of data will always be available. Unlike bitcoin where data permanence is baked into the system at a steep cost, nostr does not promise that every random note or meme will be preserved forever. That said, in practice, any data perceived as valuable by someone will likely be stored and distributed by multiple entities. If something matters to someone, they will keep a signed copy.

Nostr is the Streisand Effect in protocol form. The Streisand effect is when an attempt to suppress information backfires, causing it to spread even further. With nostr, anyone can broadcast signed data, anyone can store it, and anyone can distribute it. Try to censor something important? Good luck. The moment it catches attention, it will be stored on relays across the globe, copied, and shared by those who find it worth keeping. Data deemed important will be replicated across servers by individuals acting in their own interest.

Nostr’s distributed nature ensures that the system does not rely on a single point of failure or a corporate overlord. Instead, it leans on the collective will of its users. The result is a network where costs stay manageable, participation is open to all, and valuable verifiable data is stored and distributed forever.

@ 2dd9250b:6e928072

Vi recentemente um post onde a pessoa diz que aquele final do filme O Doutrinador (2019) não faz sentido porque mesmo o protagonista explodindo o Palácio dos Três Poderes, não acaba com a corrupção no Brasil.

Progressistas não sabem ler e não conseguem interpretar textos corretamente. O final de Doutrinador não tem a ver com isso, tem a ver com a relação entre o Herói e a sua Cidade.

Nas histórias em quadrinhos há uma ligação entre a cidade e o Super-Herói. Gotham City por exemplo, cria o Batman. Isso é mostrado em The Batman (2022) e em Batman: Cavaleiro das Trevas, quando aquele garoto no final, diz para o Batman não fugir, porque ele queria ver o Batman de novo. E o Comissário Gordon diz que o "Batman é o que a cidade de Gotham precisa."

Batman: Cavaleiro das Trevas Ressurge mostra a cidade de Gotham sendo tomada pela corrupção e pela ideologia do Bane. A Cidade vai definhando em imoralidade e o Bruce, ao olhar da prisão a cidade sendo destruída, decide que o Batman precisa voltar porque se Gotham for destruída, o Batman é destruído junto. E isso o da forças para consegue fugir daquele poço e voltar para salvar Gotham.

Isso também é mostrado em Demolidor. Na série Demolidor o Matt Murdock sempre fala que precisa defender a cidade Cozinha do Inferno; que o Fisk não vai dominar a cidade e fazer o que ele quiser nela. Inclusive na terceira temporada isso fica mais evidente na luta final na mansão do Fisk, onde Matt grita que agora a cidade toda vai saber o que ele fez; a cidade vai ver o mal que ele é para Hell's Kitchen, porque a gente sabe que o Fisk fez de tudo para a imagem do Demolidor entrar e descrédito perante os cidadãos, então o que acontece no final do filme O Doutrinador não significa que ele está acabando com a corrupção quando explode o Congresso, ele está praticamente interrompendo o ciclo do sistema, colocando uma falha em sua engrenagem.

Quando você ouve falar de Brasília, você pensa na corrupção dos políticos, onde a farra acontece,, onde corruptos desviam dinheiro arrecadado dos impostos, impostos estes que são centralizados na União. Então quando você ouve falarem de Brasília, sempre pensa que o pessoal que mora lá, mora junto com tudo de podre que acontece no Brasil.

Logo quando o Doutrinador explode tudo ali, ele está basicamente destruindo o mecanismo que suja Brasília. Ele está fazendo isso naquela cidade. Porque o símbolo da cidade é justamente esse, a farsa de que naquele lugar o povo será ouvido e a justiça será feita. Ele está destruindo a ideologia de que o Estado nos protege, nos dá segurança, saúde e educação. Porque na verdade o Estado só existe para privilegiar os políticos, funcionários públicos de auto escalão, suas famílias e amigos. Enquanto que o povo sofre para sustentar a elite política. O protagonista Miguel entendeu isso quando a filha dele morreu na fila do SUS.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 66675158:1b644430

I don't believe in "vibe coding" – it's just the newest Silicon Valley fad trying to give meaning to their latest favorite technology, LLMs. We've seen this pattern before with blockchain, when suddenly Non Fungible Tokens appeared, followed by Web3 startups promising to revolutionize everything from social media to supply chains. VCs couldn't throw money fast enough at anything with "decentralized" (in name only) in the pitch deck. Andreessen Horowitz launched billion-dollar crypto funds, while Y Combinator batches filled with blockchain startups promising to be "Uber for X, but on the blockchain."

The metaverse mania followed, with Meta betting its future on digital worlds where we'd supposedly hang out as legless avatars. Decentralized (in name only) autonomous organizations emerged as the next big thing – supposedly democratic internet communities that ended up being the next scam for quick money.

Then came the inevitable collapse. The FTX implosion in late 2022 revealed fraud, Luna/Terra's death spiral wiped out billions (including my ten thousand dollars), while Celsius and BlockFi froze customer assets before bankruptcy.

By 2023, crypto winter had fully set in. The SEC started aggressive enforcement actions, while users realized that blockchain technology had delivered almost no practical value despite a decade of promises.

Blockchain's promises tapped into fundamental human desires – decentralization resonated with a generation disillusioned by traditional institutions. Evangelists presented a utopian vision of freedom from centralized control. Perhaps most significantly, crypto offered a sense of meaning in an increasingly abstract world, making the clear signs of scams harder to notice.

The technology itself had failed to solve any real-world problems at scale. By 2024, the once-mighty crypto ecosystem had become a cautionary tale. Venture firms quietly scrubbed blockchain references from their websites while founders pivoted to AI and large language models.

---

Most reading this are likely fellow bitcoiners and nostr users who understand that Bitcoin is blockchain's only valid use case. But I shared that painful history because I believe the AI-hype cycle will follow the same trajectory.

Just like with blockchain, we're now seeing VCs who once couldn't stop talking about "Web3" falling over themselves to fund anything with "AI" in the pitch deck. The buzzwords have simply changed from "decentralized" to "intelligent."

"Vibe coding" is the perfect example – a trendy name for what is essentially just fuzzy instructions to LLMs. Developers who've spent years honing programming skills are now supposed to believe that "vibing" with an AI is somehow a legitimate methodology.

This might be controversial to some, but obvious to others:

Formal, context-free grammar will always remain essential for building precise systems, regardless of how advanced natural language technology becomes

The mathematical precision of programming languages provides a foundation that human language's ambiguity can never replace. Programming requires precision – languages, compilers, and processors operate on explicit instructions, not vibes. What "vibe coding" advocates miss is that beneath every AI-generated snippet lies the same deterministic rules that have always governed computation.

LLMs don't understand code in any meaningful sense—they've just ingested enormous datasets of human-written code and can predict patterns. When they "work," it's because they've seen similar patterns before, not because they comprehend the underlying logic.

This creates a dangerous dependency. Junior developers "vibing" with LLMs might get working code without understanding the fundamental principles. When something breaks in production, they'll lack the knowledge to fix it.

Even experienced developers can find themselves in treacherous territory when relying too heavily on LLM-generated code. What starts as a productivity boost can transform into a dependency crutch.

The real danger isn't just technical limitations, but the false confidence it instills. Developers begin to believe they understand systems they've merely instructed an AI to generate – fundamentally different from understanding code you've written yourself.

We're already seeing the warning signs: projects cobbled together with LLM-generated code that work initially but become maintenance nightmares when requirements change or edge cases emerge.

The venture capital money is flowing exactly as it did with blockchain. Anthropic raised billions, OpenAI is valued astronomically despite minimal revenue, and countless others are competing to build ever-larger models with vague promises. Every startup now claims to be "AI-powered" regardless of whether it makes sense.

Don't get me wrong—there's genuine innovation happening in AI research. But "vibe coding" isn't it. It's a marketing term designed to make fuzzy prompting sound revolutionary.

Cursor perfectly embodies this AI hype cycle. It's an AI-enhanced code editor built on VS Code that promises to revolutionize programming by letting you "chat with your codebase." Just like blockchain startups promised to "revolutionize" industries, Cursor promises to transform development by adding LLM capabilities.

Yes, Cursor can be genuinely helpful. It can explain unfamiliar code, suggest completions, and help debug simple issues. After trying it for just an hour, I found the autocomplete to be MAGICAL for simple refactoring and basic functionality.

But the marketing goes far beyond reality. The suggestion that you can simply describe what you want and get production-ready code is dangerously misleading. What you get are approximations with:

• Security vulnerabilities the model doesn't understand
• Edge cases it hasn't considered
• Performance implications it can't reason about
• Dependency conflicts it has no way to foresee

The most concerning aspect is how such tools are marketed to beginners as shortcuts around learning fundamentals. "Why spend years learning to code when you can just tell AI what you want?" This is reminiscent of how crypto was sold as a get-rich-quick scheme requiring no actual understanding.

When you "vibe code" with an AI, you're not eliminating complexity—you're outsourcing understanding to a black box. This creates developers who can prompt but not program, who can generate but not comprehend.

The real utility of LLMs in development is in augmenting existing workflows:

• Explaining unfamiliar codebases
• Generating boilerplate for well-understood patterns
• Suggesting implementations that a developer evaluates critically
• Assisting with documentation and testing

These uses involve the model as a subordinate assistant to a knowledgeable developer, not as a replacement for expertise. This is where the technology adds value—as a sophisticated tool in skilled hands.

Cursor is just a better hammer, not a replacement for understanding what you're building. The actual value emerges when used by developers who understand what happens beneath the abstractions. They can recognize when AI suggestions make sense and when they don't because they have the fundamental knowledge to evaluate output critically.

This is precisely where the "vibe coding" narrative falls apart.

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

Tutorial feito por nostr:nostr:npub1rc56x0ek0dd303eph523g3chm0wmrs5wdk6vs0ehd0m5fn8t7y4sqra3tk poste original abaixo:

Parte 1 : http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/263585/tutorial-debloat-de-celulares-android-via-adb-parte-1

Parte 2 : http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/index.php/263586/tutorial-debloat-de-celulares-android-via-adb-parte-2

Quando o assunto é privacidade em celulares, uma das medidas comumente mencionadas é a remoção de bloatwares do dispositivo, também chamado de debloat. O meio mais eficiente para isso sem dúvidas é a troca de sistema operacional. Custom Rom’s como LineageOS, GrapheneOS, Iodé, CalyxOS, etc, já são bastante enxutos nesse quesito, principalmente quanto não é instalado os G-Apps com o sistema. No entanto, essa prática pode acabar resultando em problemas indesejados como a perca de funções do dispositivo, e até mesmo incompatibilidade com apps bancários, tornando este método mais atrativo para quem possui mais de um dispositivo e separando um apenas para privacidade.   Pensando nisso, pessoas que possuem apenas um único dispositivo móvel, que são necessitadas desses apps ou funções, mas, ao mesmo tempo, tem essa visão em prol da privacidade, buscam por um meio-termo entre manter a Stock rom, e não ter seus dados coletados por esses bloatwares. Felizmente, a remoção de bloatwares é possível e pode ser realizada via root, ou mais da maneira que este artigo irá tratar, via adb.

O que são bloatwares?

Bloatware é a junção das palavras bloat (inchar) + software (programa), ou seja, um bloatware é basicamente um programa inútil ou facilmente substituível — colocado em seu dispositivo previamente pela fabricante e operadora — que está no seu dispositivo apenas ocupando espaço de armazenamento, consumindo memória RAM e pior, coletando seus dados e enviando para servidores externos, além de serem mais pontos de vulnerabilidades.

O que é o adb?

O Android Debug Brigde, ou apenas adb, é uma ferramenta que se utiliza das permissões de usuário shell e permite o envio de comandos vindo de um computador para um dispositivo Android exigindo apenas que a depuração USB esteja ativa, mas também pode ser usada diretamente no celular a partir do Android 11, com o uso do Termux e a depuração sem fio (ou depuração wifi). A ferramenta funciona normalmente em dispositivos sem root, e também funciona caso o celular esteja em Recovery Mode.

Requisitos:

Para computadores:

• Depuração USB ativa no celular; • Computador com adb; • Cabo USB;

Para celulares:

• Depuração sem fio (ou depuração wifi) ativa no celular; • Termux; • Android 11 ou superior;

Para ambos:

• Firewall NetGuard instalado e configurado no celular; • Lista de bloatwares para seu dispositivo;

Ativação de depuração:

Para ativar a Depuração USB em seu dispositivo, pesquise como ativar as opções de desenvolvedor de seu dispositivo, e lá ative a depuração. No caso da depuração sem fio, sua ativação irá ser necessária apenas no momento que for conectar o dispositivo ao Termux.

Instalação e configuração do NetGuard

O NetGuard pode ser instalado através da própria Google Play Store, mas de preferência instale pela F-Droid ou Github para evitar telemetria.

F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/

Github: https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases

Após instalado, configure da seguinte maneira:

Configurações → padrões (lista branca/negra) → ative as 3 primeiras opções (bloquear wifi, bloquear dados móveis e aplicar regras ‘quando tela estiver ligada’);

Configurações → opções avançadas → ative as duas primeiras (administrar aplicativos do sistema e registrar acesso a internet);

Com isso, todos os apps estarão sendo bloqueados de acessar a internet, seja por wifi ou dados móveis, e na página principal do app basta permitir o acesso a rede para os apps que você vai usar (se necessário). Permita que o app rode em segundo plano sem restrição da otimização de bateria, assim quando o celular ligar, ele já estará ativo.

Lista de bloatwares

Nem todos os bloatwares são genéricos, haverá bloatwares diferentes conforme a marca, modelo, versão do Android, e até mesmo região.

Para obter uma lista de bloatwares de seu dispositivo, caso seu aparelho já possua um tempo de existência, você encontrará listas prontas facilmente apenas pesquisando por elas. Supondo que temos um Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus em mãos, basta pesquisar em seu motor de busca por:

Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus bloatware list

Provavelmente essas listas já terão inclusas todos os bloatwares das mais diversas regiões, lhe poupando o trabalho de buscar por alguma lista mais específica.

Caso seu aparelho seja muito recente, e/ou não encontre uma lista pronta de bloatwares, devo dizer que você acaba de pegar em merda, pois é chato para um caralho pesquisar por cada aplicação para saber sua função, se é essencial para o sistema ou se é facilmente substituível.

De antemão já aviso, que mais para frente, caso vossa gostosura remova um desses aplicativos que era essencial para o sistema sem saber, vai acabar resultando na perda de alguma função importante, ou pior, ao reiniciar o aparelho o sistema pode estar quebrado, lhe obrigando a seguir com uma formatação, e repetir todo o processo novamente.

Download do adb em computadores

Para usar a ferramenta do adb em computadores, basta baixar o pacote chamado SDK platform-tools, disponível através deste link: https://developer.android.com/tools/releases/platform-tools. Por ele, você consegue o download para Windows, Mac e Linux.

Uma vez baixado, basta extrair o arquivo zipado, contendo dentro dele uma pasta chamada platform-tools que basta ser aberta no terminal para se usar o adb.

Download do adb em celulares com Termux.

Para usar a ferramenta do adb diretamente no celular, antes temos que baixar o app Termux, que é um emulador de terminal linux, e já possui o adb em seu repositório. Você encontra o app na Google Play Store, mas novamente recomendo baixar pela F-Droid ou diretamente no Github do projeto.

F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.termux/

Github: https://github.com/termux/termux-app/releases

Processo de debloat

Antes de iniciarmos, é importante deixar claro que não é para você sair removendo todos os bloatwares de cara sem mais nem menos, afinal alguns deles precisam antes ser substituídos, podem ser essenciais para você para alguma atividade ou função, ou até mesmo são insubstituíveis.

Alguns exemplos de bloatwares que a substituição é necessária antes da remoção, é o Launcher, afinal, é a interface gráfica do sistema, e o teclado, que sem ele só é possível digitar com teclado externo. O Launcher e teclado podem ser substituídos por quaisquer outros, minha recomendação pessoal é por aqueles que respeitam sua privacidade, como Pie Launcher e Simple Laucher, enquanto o teclado pelo OpenBoard e FlorisBoard, todos open-source e disponíveis da F-Droid.

Identifique entre a lista de bloatwares, quais você gosta, precisa ou prefere não substituir, de maneira alguma você é obrigado a remover todos os bloatwares possíveis, modifique seu sistema a seu bel-prazer. O NetGuard lista todos os apps do celular com o nome do pacote, com isso você pode filtrar bem qual deles não remover.

Um exemplo claro de bloatware insubstituível e, portanto, não pode ser removido, é o com.android.mtp, um protocolo onde sua função é auxiliar a comunicação do dispositivo com um computador via USB, mas por algum motivo, tem acesso a rede e se comunica frequentemente com servidores externos. Para esses casos, e melhor solução mesmo é bloquear o acesso a rede desses bloatwares com o NetGuard.

MTP tentando comunicação com servidores externos:

Executando o adb shell

No computador

Faça backup de todos os seus arquivos importantes para algum armazenamento externo, e formate seu celular com o hard reset. Após a formatação, e a ativação da depuração USB, conecte seu aparelho e o pc com o auxílio de um cabo USB. Muito provavelmente seu dispositivo irá apenas começar a carregar, por isso permita a transferência de dados, para que o computador consiga se comunicar normalmente com o celular.

Já no pc, abra a pasta platform-tools dentro do terminal, e execute o seguinte comando:

./adb start-server

O resultado deve ser:

daemon not running; starting now at tcp:5037 daemon started successfully

E caso não apareça nada, execute:

./adb kill-server

E inicie novamente.

Com o adb conectado ao celular, execute:

./adb shell

Para poder executar comandos diretamente para o dispositivo. No meu caso, meu celular é um Redmi Note 8 Pro, codinome Begonia.

Logo o resultado deve ser:

begonia:/ $

Caso ocorra algum erro do tipo:

adb: device unauthorized. This adb server’s $ADB_VENDOR_KEYS is not set Try ‘adb kill-server’ if that seems wrong. Otherwise check for a confirmation dialog on your device.

Verifique no celular se apareceu alguma confirmação para autorizar a depuração USB, caso sim, autorize e tente novamente. Caso não apareça nada, execute o kill-server e repita o processo.

No celular

Após realizar o mesmo processo de backup e hard reset citado anteriormente, instale o Termux e, com ele iniciado, execute o comando:

pkg install android-tools

Quando surgir a mensagem “Do you want to continue? [Y/n]”, basta dar enter novamente que já aceita e finaliza a instalação

Agora, vá até as opções de desenvolvedor, e ative a depuração sem fio. Dentro das opções da depuração sem fio, terá uma opção de emparelhamento do dispositivo com um código, que irá informar para você um código em emparelhamento, com um endereço IP e porta, que será usado para a conexão com o Termux.

Para facilitar o processo, recomendo que abra tanto as configurações quanto o Termux ao mesmo tempo, e divida a tela com os dois app’s, como da maneira a seguir:

Para parear o Termux com o dispositivo, não é necessário digitar o ip informado, basta trocar por “localhost”, já a porta e o código de emparelhamento, deve ser digitado exatamente como informado. Execute:

adb pair localhost:porta CódigoDeEmparelhamento

De acordo com a imagem mostrada anteriormente, o comando ficaria “adb pair localhost:41255 757495”.

Com o dispositivo emparelhado com o Termux, agora basta conectar para conseguir executar os comandos, para isso execute:

adb connect localhost:porta

Obs: a porta que você deve informar neste comando não é a mesma informada com o código de emparelhamento, e sim a informada na tela principal da depuração sem fio.

Pronto! Termux e adb conectado com sucesso ao dispositivo, agora basta executar normalmente o adb shell:

adb shell

Remoção na prática Com o adb shell executado, você está pronto para remover os bloatwares. No meu caso, irei mostrar apenas a remoção de um app (Google Maps), já que o comando é o mesmo para qualquer outro, mudando apenas o nome do pacote.

Dentro do NetGuard, verificando as informações do Google Maps:

Podemos ver que mesmo fora de uso, e com a localização do dispositivo desativado, o app está tentando loucamente se comunicar com servidores externos, e informar sabe-se lá que peste. Mas sem novidades até aqui, o mais importante é que podemos ver que o nome do pacote do Google Maps é com.google.android.apps.maps, e para o remover do celular, basta executar:

pm uninstall –user 0 com.google.android.apps.maps

E pronto, bloatware removido! Agora basta repetir o processo para o resto dos bloatwares, trocando apenas o nome do pacote.

Para acelerar o processo, você pode já criar uma lista do bloco de notas com os comandos, e quando colar no terminal, irá executar um atrás do outro.

Exemplo de lista:

Caso a donzela tenha removido alguma coisa sem querer, também é possível recuperar o pacote com o comando:

cmd package install-existing nome.do.pacote

Pós-debloat

Após limpar o máximo possível o seu sistema, reinicie o aparelho, caso entre no como recovery e não seja possível dar reboot, significa que você removeu algum app “essencial” para o sistema, e terá que formatar o aparelho e repetir toda a remoção novamente, desta vez removendo poucos bloatwares de uma vez, e reiniciando o aparelho até descobrir qual deles não pode ser removido. Sim, dá trabalho… quem mandou querer privacidade?

Caso o aparelho reinicie normalmente após a remoção, parabéns, agora basta usar seu celular como bem entender! Mantenha o NetGuard sempre executando e os bloatwares que não foram possíveis remover não irão se comunicar com servidores externos, passe a usar apps open source da F-Droid e instale outros apps através da Aurora Store ao invés da Google Play Store.

Referências: Caso você seja um Australopithecus e tenha achado este guia difícil, eis uma videoaula (3:14:40) do Anderson do canal Ciberdef, realizando todo o processo: http://odysee.com/@zai:5/Como-remover-at%C3%A9-200-APLICATIVOS-que-colocam-a-sua-PRIVACIDADE-E-SEGURAN%C3%87A-em-risco.:4?lid=6d50f40314eee7e2f218536d9e5d300290931d23

Pdf’s do Anderson citados na videoaula: créditos ao anon6837264 http://eternalcbrzpicytj4zyguygpmkjlkddxob7tptlr25cdipe5svyqoqd.onion/file/3863a834d29285d397b73a4af6fb1bbe67c888d72d30/t-05e63192d02ffd.pdf

Processo de instalação do Termux e adb no celular: https://youtu.be/APolZrPHSms

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass technisch manches möglich ist, \ aber der Staat es nicht nutzt. \ Angela Merkel

Die Modalverben zu erklären, ist im Deutschunterricht manchmal nicht ganz einfach. Nicht alle Fremdsprachen unterscheiden zum Beispiel bei der Frage nach einer Möglichkeit gleichermaßen zwischen «können» im Sinne von «die Gelegenheit, Kenntnis oder Fähigkeit haben» und «dürfen» als «die Erlaubnis oder Berechtigung haben». Das spanische Wort «poder» etwa steht für beides.

Ebenso ist vielen Schülern auf den ersten Blick nicht recht klar, dass das logische Gegenteil von «müssen» nicht unbedingt «nicht müssen» ist, sondern vielmehr «nicht dürfen». An den Verkehrsschildern lässt sich so etwas meistens recht gut erklären: Manchmal muss man abbiegen, aber manchmal darf man eben nicht.

Dieses Beispiel soll ein wenig die Verwirrungstaktik veranschaulichen, die in der Politik gerne verwendet wird, um unpopuläre oder restriktive Maßnahmen Stück für Stück einzuführen. Zuerst ist etwas einfach innovativ und bringt viele Vorteile. Vor allem ist es freiwillig, jeder kann selber entscheiden, niemand muss mitmachen. Später kann man zunehmend weniger Alternativen wählen, weil sie verschwinden, und irgendwann verwandelt sich alles andere in «nicht dürfen» – die Maßnahme ist obligatorisch.

Um die Durchsetzung derartiger Initiativen strategisch zu unterstützen und nett zu verpacken, gibt es Lobbyisten, gerne auch NGOs genannt. Dass das «NG» am Anfang dieser Abkürzung übersetzt «Nicht-Regierungs-» bedeutet, ist ein Anachronismus. Das war vielleicht früher einmal so, heute ist eher das Gegenteil gemeint.

In unserer modernen Zeit wird enorm viel Lobbyarbeit für die Digitalisierung praktisch sämtlicher Lebensbereiche aufgewendet. Was das auf dem Sektor der Mobilität bedeuten kann, haben wir diese Woche anhand aktueller Entwicklungen in Spanien beleuchtet. Begründet teilweise mit Vorgaben der Europäischen Union arbeitet man dort fleißig an einer «neuen Mobilität», basierend auf «intelligenter» technologischer Infrastruktur. Derartige Anwandlungen wurden auch schon als «Technofeudalismus» angeprangert.

Nationale Zugangspunkte für Mobilitätsdaten im Sinne der EU gibt es nicht nur in allen Mitgliedsländern, sondern auch in der Schweiz und in Großbritannien. Das Vereinigte Königreich beteiligt sich darüber hinaus an anderen EU-Projekten für digitale Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen, wie dem biometrischen Identifizierungssystem für «nachhaltigen Verkehr und Tourismus».

Natürlich marschiert auch Deutschland stracks und euphorisch in Richtung digitaler Zukunft. Ohne vernetzte Mobilität und einen «verlässlichen Zugang zu Daten, einschließlich Echtzeitdaten» komme man in der Verkehrsplanung und -steuerung nicht aus, erklärt die Regierung. Der Interessenverband der IT-Dienstleister Bitkom will «die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung vorantreiben». Dazu bewirbt er unter anderem die Konzepte Smart City, Smart Region und Smart Country und behauptet, deutsche Großstädte «setzen bei Mobilität voll auf Digitalisierung».

Es steht zu befürchten, dass das umfassende Sammeln, Verarbeiten und Vernetzen von Daten, das angeblich die Menschen unterstützen soll (und theoretisch ja auch könnte), eher dazu benutzt wird, sie zu kontrollieren und zu manipulieren. Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird, desto größer sind diese Möglichkeiten. Im Ergebnis könnten solche Prozesse den Bürger nicht nur einschränken oder überflüssig machen, sondern in mancherlei Hinsicht regelrecht abschalten. Eine gesunde Skepsis ist also geboten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Er ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 0b118e40:4edc09cb

In wanting to understand the global economy of manufacturing better and in particular the decline of US manufacturing, I picked up a few books on it. This one is called ‘Why manufacturing is still key to America's future’ by Ro Khanna. It’s a little old but I’ve shared some recent stats as a comparison as well. Ro Khanna was with the U.S. Dept of Commerce, focusing on govt's impact, or lack thereof, on manufacturing. Some key highlights:

1. You can’t split R&D and manufacturing. When you offshore manufacturing, you send off design with it and you lose a big chance to cultivate innovation in the US - Andy Grove, CEO of Intel.
2. Manufacturing is needed to reduce the trade deficit that started in 1971
3. U.S. exports to China are $153.8 billion, imports are $536.8 billion. Hence trade deficit with China is $382.9 billion
4. The private sector demands out-of-the-box thinking. In the gov’t, follow instructions; don’t make waves; keep your head down for career advancement.
5. Small and medium-sized businesses create about half of all manufacturing jobs and make up more than 90 percent of U.S. manufacturers
6. Cluster theory - a lot of business in the surrounding area impacts other businesses i.e. supply chain. On the flip side, businesses shutting down will be like dominoes impacting other businesses. Michael Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations" (1990)
7. Foreign subsidy - foreign companies ie China get a lot of subsidies to build manufacturing - free land, and factory capital. Cheap labour is not the only competition
8. Corporate tax - The US charges heavy corporate tax on foreign earnings hence companies rather invest outside than bring it back - John Chambers, CEO and Chairman Emeritus, Cisco 9 < 1 percent of American businesses export and mostly to Canada and Mexico only
9. US global manufacturing share in the ’90s was >22%. It started slipping in 99’. Today it’s 16.8%. China’s global market share was 3% in the 90, 8% in 2000 - today it is 28.7%

**More inputs **

• Andy Grove, Intel's 3rd employee hired in 1968 and CEO from 1987 to 1998, drove Intel's market cap from $4 billion to nearly $197 billion, making it the world's largest computer chip manufacturer. He highlighted the inseparability of design and manufacturing - which leads to the loss of R&D and innovation in a country when manufacturing is offshored. Grove also questioned the absence of tracking offshored jobs.

• Apple has a similar philosophy in bridging design and manufacturing. Dow Chemical built research facilities outside of the US because it could not separate manufacturing from R&D

• Manufacturing’s deterrent factor is high capex and lower returns compared to the service sector.

• “The Commerce Department was a chronic underperformer, led in recent times by political hacks or bureaucrats, from one party or the other, who simply didn’t get it.” (from the book)

• Manufacturing is needed to reduce the trade deficit. In 2009, the trade deficit reached almost $375 billion - meaning the US spends $375 billion more on foreign economies than it does fueling its economy. (Current trade deficit is $65.5 billion)

• To balance the economy, export more and import less. In 2009, 60% of manufacturing goods were exported (current amount of 80%). But this is not enough to fulfil domestic consumption and reduce imports, hence the need for more manufacturing.

• Trade deficit with China - In 2009, the total trade deficit with China was more than $220 billion, service trade surplus of $6 billion. Today, U.S. export to China is $153.8 billion, imports from China is $536.8 billion, and the trade deficit with China is $382.9 billion (almost double the amount of trade deficit with China in 14 years)

• While knowledge workers are important, must not discount the importance of hands-on technical skills

• The rate of decline in manufacturing increases unemployment in manufacturing jobs such as engineer, designer, or floor operator. The majority of the workforce is Caucasian, with African Americans constituting about 10 percent and Hispanics about 15 percent

• “If the private sector rewards “out of the box” thinking, Washington often expects regurgitation as the norm for career advancement. Follow instructions; don’t make waves; keep your head down—that’s the motto among insiders. It’s something that I didn’t like and never got used to.” (from the book)

• Our nation cannot bleed manufacturing jobs and expect to have a middle class: Bob Baugh, union leader

• Small and medium-sized businesses create about half of all manufacturing jobs and make up more than 90 percent of U.S. manufacturers.

• Importance of local manufacturers in helping the country during turmoil - The Globe factory produced protective clothing for firefighters during 9/11. The challenges were seen during COVID-19, not being able to manufacture masks, medical

• Federal gov’t program: the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) helps small and medium-sized manufacturers improve their competitiveness

• The decline of manufacturing impacts surrounding businesses (I’ve seen it drop like dominoes). This is based on the cluster theory by Professor Michael Porter, introduced in the late 1990s, which emphasizes geographic concentrations of related businesses and institutions in specific industries. Clusters offer advantages like knowledge sharing, talent access, efficient supply chains, and competition-driven innovation, benefiting regional development and global competitiveness.

• Gov’t subsidies: Foreign competitors get hefty government subsidies, including free land, factories, and capital. These subsidies make price competition tough, not just cheap labourers (for example China)

• Corporate tax: Overseas earnings are taxed when brought back to the U.S. Due to high corporate tax rates, companies rather invest these earnings abroad. A one-time tax incentive for repatriation will encourage more domestic investment and job creation (John Chambers of Cisco, and Tim Guertin of Varian)

• General observation - The US pioneers innovation but is unable to keep up the fight when competitors come on board because of the lack of support compared to other countries - i.e. luxury cards, automobiles, automation, silicon industry, solar industry etc

• 95% of the world’s consumers and 70% of the world’s purchasing power are outside the United States (in 2009 and about the same now)

• Only 1 percent of American businesses export.

• Out of that, 58% of the companies that do export only export to Canada or Mexico. They’re still reluctant to venture out to Latin America, Asia, or even Europe.

• Exports make up only 11% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) - Note, still the same from 2009 to the present. Germany, China, India, Brazil, Russia, UK, Japan - exports more

• Trade shows are useful and costly. A suggestion is for the U.S. government to help cover travel and participation expenses for first-time attendees. These businesses could repay the government if they secure sales at the show, similar to how the Department of Agriculture supports food companies.

• Several countries are subsidised in tradeshows and have pavilions that are chic and modern such as the British, Germany, Turkey, Italy, and Egypt. US’s booths don’t stand out.

• The simplicity of getting paperwork sorted: In 1972, when Andy Grove went to Malaysia to establish Intel’s first foreign operation, the chief minister of Malaysia introduced him to Chet Singh, who headed the state’s Penang Development Corporation. “Chet Singh is your one-stop agent,” the Malaysian chief minister told Mr. Grove. Whenever Intel had an issue with getting a particular license, permit, road paved, or available tax credit, Chet would take care of it. He stayed in his job for more than two decades until the early 1990s, facilitating Intel’s ability to expand its Malaysian presence. Today, Malaysia is home to Intel’s largest manufacturing facility outside the United States (Note: Malaysia doesn’t treat its people the same way)

• Over time I think manufacturing moved away because of some mixture of regulations (not all bad), high-cost labor (unions), higher cost of capital (complex) and a focus on other things (comparative advantage, or misdirected cultural signals?). Bill Gates, 2011

• US global manufacturing share in the 80’s and 90’s was 22% - 24%. It started slipping in 99’. Today it’s 16.8%. China’s global market share was 3% in the 90, 8% in 2000 - today it is 28.7%

• Global Manufacturing Output China – 28.7% United States – 16.8% Japan – 7.5% Germany – 5.3% India – 3.1% South Korea – 3% Italy – 2.1% France – 1.9% United Kingdom – 1.8% Indonesia – 1.6%

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mechanism relies on SHA-256, a hashing algorithm. Even with a powerful quantum computer, SHA-256 remains secure because:

• Quantum computers excel at factoring large numbers (Shor’s Algorithm).
• However, SHA-256 is a one-way function, meaning there's no known quantum algorithm that can efficiently reverse it.
• Grover’s Algorithm (which theoretically speeds up brute force attacks) would still require 2¹²⁸ operations to break SHA-256 – far beyond practical reach.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔑 2. Public Key Vulnerability – But Only If You Reuse Addresses

Bitcoin uses Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to generate keys.

• A quantum computer could use Shor’s Algorithm to break SECP256K1, the curve Bitcoin uses.
• If you never reuse addresses, it is an additional security element
• 🔑 1. Bitcoin Addresses Are NOT Public Keys

Many people assume a Bitcoin address is the public key—this is wrong.

• When you receive Bitcoin, it is sent to a hashed public key (the Bitcoin address).
• The actual public key is never exposed because it is the Bitcoin Adress who addresses the Public Key which never reveals the creation of a public key by a spend
• Bitcoin uses Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) or newer methods like Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash (P2WPKH), which add extra layers of security.

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

• When you send Bitcoin, your wallet creates a digital signature.
• This signature uses the private key to prove ownership.
• The Bitcoin address is revealed and creates the Public Key
• The public key remains hidden inside the Bitcoin script and Merkle tree.

This means: ✔ The public key is never exposed. ✔ Quantum attackers have nothing to target, attacking a Bitcoin Address is a zero value game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

• Bitcoin developers can upgrade to quantum-safe cryptography (e.g., lattice-based cryptography or post-quantum signatures like Dilithium).
• Bitcoin’s decentralized nature ensures a network-wide soft fork or hard fork could transition to quantum-resistant keys.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

⏳ 4. The 10-Minute Block Rule as a Security Feature

• Bitcoin’s network operates on a 10-minute block interval, meaning:Even if an attacker had immense computational power (like a quantum computer), they could only attempt an attack every 10 minutes.Unlike traditional encryption, where a hacker could continuously brute-force keys, Bitcoin’s system resets the challenge with every new block.This limits the window of opportunity for quantum attacks.

---

🎯 5. Quantum Attack Needs to Solve a Block in Real-Time

• A quantum attacker must solve the cryptographic puzzle (Proof of Work) in under 10 minutes.
• The problem? Any slight error changes the hash completely, meaning:If the quantum computer makes a mistake (even 0.0001% probability), the entire attack fails.Quantum decoherence (loss of qubit stability) makes error correction a massive challenge.The computational cost of recovering from an incorrect hash is still incredibly high.

---

⚡ 6. Network Resilience – Even if a Block Is Hacked

• Even if a quantum computer somehow solved a block instantly:The network would quickly recognize and reject invalid transactions.Other miners would continue mining under normal cryptographic rules.51% Attack? The attacker would need to consistently beat the entire Bitcoin network, which is not sustainable.

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

• Bitcoin adjusts mining difficulty every 2016 blocks (\~2 weeks).
• If quantum miners appeared and suddenly started solving blocks too quickly, the difficulty would adjust upward, making attacks significantly harder.
• This self-correcting mechanism ensures that even quantum computers wouldn't easily overpower the network.

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

✔ The 10-minute rule limits attack frequency – quantum computers can’t keep up.

✔ Any slight miscalculation ruins the attack, resetting all progress.

✔ Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment would react, neutralizing quantum advantages.

Even if quantum computers reach their theoretical potential, Bitcoin’s game theory and design make it incredibly resistant. 🚀

@ 147ac18e:ef1ca1ba

In a recent episode of The Survival Podcast, host Jack Spirko presents a contrarian view on the current trade war and tariffs imposed by the U.S. government. Far from being a chaotic or irrational policy, Jack argues that these tariffs are part of a broader strategic plan to rewire the global trade system in America's favor—and to force long-overdue changes in the domestic economy. Here's a breakdown of the core reasons Jack believes this is happening (or will happen) as a result of the tariffs:In a recent episode of The Survival Podcast, host Jack Spirko presents a contrarian view on the current trade war and tariffs imposed by the U.S. government. Far from being a chaotic or irrational policy, Jack argues that these tariffs are part of a broader strategic plan to rewire the global trade system in America's favor—and to force long-overdue changes in the domestic economy. Here's a breakdown of the core reasons Jack believes this is happening (or will happen) as a result of the tariffs:

1. Tariffs Are a Tool, Not the Goal

Jack’s central thesis is that tariffs are not meant to be a permanent fixture—they’re a pressure tactic. The goal isn’t protectionism for its own sake, but rather to reset trade relationships that have historically disadvantaged the U.S. For example, Taiwan responded to the tariffs not with retaliation but by proactively offering to reduce barriers and increase imports from the U.S. That, Jack says, is the intended outcome: cooperation on better terms.

2. Forced Deleveraging to Prevent Collapse

One of the boldest claims Jack makes is that the Trump administration used the tariffs as a catalyst to trigger a “controlled burn” of an over-leveraged stock market. According to him, large institutions were deeply leveraged in equities, and had the bubble popped organically later in the year, it would have required massive bailouts. Instead, the shock caused by tariffs triggered early deleveraging, avoiding systemic failure.

“I’m telling you, a bailout scenario was just avoided... This was intentional.” – Jack Spirko

3. Global Re-shoring and Domestic Manufacturing

Tariffs are incentivizing companies to move production back to the U.S., especially in key areas like semiconductors, energy, and industrial goods. This shift is being further accelerated by global geopolitical instability, creating a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity to rebuild small-town America and domestic supply chains.

4. Not Inflationary—Strategically Deflationary

Jack challenges conventional economic wisdom by arguing that tariffs themselves do not cause inflation, because inflation is a function of monetary expansion—not rising prices alone. In fact, he believes this economic shift may lead to deflation in some sectors, particularly as companies liquidate inventory, lower prices to remain competitive, and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains.

“Rising prices alone are not inflation. Inflation is expansion of the money supply.” – Jack Spirko

5. Energy Costs Will Fall

A drop in global oil prices, partially due to reduced transport needs as manufacturing reshoring increases, plays into the strategy. Jack notes that oil at $60 per barrel weakens adversaries like Russia (whose economy depends heavily on high oil prices) while keeping U.S. production viable. Lower energy costs also benefit domestic manufacturers.

6. The Digital Dollar & Global Dollarization

Alongside this industrial shift, the U.S. is poised to roll out a “digital dollar” infrastructure, giving global access to stablecoins backed by U.S. banks. Jack frames this as an effort to further entrench the dollar as the world’s dominant currency—ensuring continued global demand and export leverage without the need for perpetual military enforcement.

7. A Window of Opportunity for Americans

For individuals, Jack sees this economic transformation as a rare chance to accumulate long-term assets—stocks, Bitcoin, and real estate—while prices are suppressed. He warns that those who panic and sell are operating with a “poverty mindset,” whereas those who stay the course will benefit from what he describes as “the greatest fire sale of productive assets in a generation.”

---

Conclusion: Not a Collapse, But a Reset

Rather than viewing tariffs as a harbinger of economic doom, Jack presents them as part of a forced evolution—an uncomfortable but necessary reboot of the U.S. economic operating system. Whether or not it works as intended, he argues, this is not a haphazard policy. It’s a calculated reshaping of global and domestic economic dynamics, and one with enormous implications for trade, energy, inflation, and the average American investor.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

I want to see Nostr succeed. If you can think of a way I can help make that happen, I’m open to it. I’d like your suggestions.

My schedule’s shifting soon, and I could volunteer a few hours a week to a Nostr project. I won’t have more total time, but how I use it will change.

Why help? I care about freedom. Nostr’s one of the most powerful freedom tools I’ve seen in my lifetime. If I believe that, I should act on it.

I don’t care about money or sats. I’m not rich, I don’t have extra cash. That doesn’t drive me—freedom does. I’m volunteering, not asking for pay.

I’m not here for clout. I’ve had enough spotlight in my life; it doesn’t move me. If I wanted clout, I’d be on Twitter dropping basic takes. Clout’s easy. Freedom’s hard. I’d rather help anonymously. No speaking at events—small meetups are cool for the vibe, but big conferences? Not my thing. I’ll never hit a huge Bitcoin conference. It’s just not my scene.

That said, I could be convinced to step up if it’d really boost Nostr—as long as it’s legal and gets results.

In this space, I’d watch for social engineering. I watch out for it. I’m not here to make friends, just to help. No shade—you all seem great—but I’ve got a full life and awesome friends irl. I don’t need your crew or to be online cool. Connect anonymously if you want; I’d encourage it.

I’m sick of watching other social media alternatives grow while Nostr kinda stalls. I could trash-talk, but I’d rather do something useful.

Skills? I’m good at spotting social media problems and finding possible solutions. I won’t overhype myself—that’s weird—but if you’re responding, you probably see something in me. Perhaps you see something that I don’t see in myself.

If you need help now or later with Nostr projects, reach out. Nostr only—nothing else. Anonymous contact’s fine. Even just a suggestion on how I can pitch in, no project attached, works too. 💜

Creeps or harassment will get blocked or I’ll nuke my simplex code if it becomes a problem.

https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-4&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FSkIkI6EPd2D63F4xFKfHk7I1UGZVNn6k1QWZ5rcyr6w%3D%40smp9.simplex.im%2FbI99B3KuYduH8jDr9ZwyhcSxm2UuR7j0%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-2%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAS9C-zPzqW41PKySfPCEizcXb1QCus6AyDkTTjfyMIRM%253D%26srv%3Djssqzccmrcws6bhmn77vgmhfjmhwlyr3u7puw4erkyoosywgl67slqqd.onion

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

อะไรคือ Heliotherapy

ถ้าลองหลับตา แล้วนึกถึงคนยุโรปยุคต้นศตวรรษที่ 20 ที่กำลังนอนอาบแดดบนภูเขา ห่มผ้าขนหนูบาง ๆ เปิดผิวให้พระอาทิตย์ลูบไล้ เฮียกำลังนึกถึงภาพของการรักษาโรคอย่างหนึ่งที่เรียกว่า Heliotherapy หรือ การบำบัดด้วยแสงอาทิตย์ ซึ่งเคยเป็นหนึ่งในศาสตร์ทางการแพทย์ที่ถูกยอมรับอย่างเป็นทางการ โดยเฉพาะในยุคที่ยังไม่มี “ยาปฏิชีวนะ”

Heliotherapy ไม่ได้เกิดจากความงมงาย แต่จากหลักฐานจริงจัง โดยเฉพาะผลงานของ ดร.ออกุสต์ โรลเลอร์ (Dr. Auguste Rollier) แพทย์ชาวสวิตเซอร์แลนด์ ผู้บุกเบิกการใช้แสงแดดรักษาผู้ป่วยวัณโรคกระดูกอย่างได้ผลในช่วงต้นศตวรรษที่ 20 เขาก่อตั้ง “โรงพยาบาลแห่งแสงอาทิตย์” บนเทือกเขาแอลป์ โดยให้ผู้ป่วยขึ้นไปอยู่ในที่สูงกว่า 1,500 เมตรเหนือระดับน้ำทะเล แล้วเปิดรับแสงแดดอย่างเป็นระบบ

ที่น่าสนใจคือ โรลเลอร์มีข้อกำหนดชัดเจนว่า ห้ามผู้ป่วยใส่แว่นกันแดดเด็ดขาด เพราะ “ดวงตา” คือหนึ่งในอวัยวะสำคัญที่ต้องรับรังสี UV เพื่อนำข้อมูลไปกระตุ้นต่อมไพเนียลในสมอง ส่งผลต่อวงจรชีวภาพ ฮอร์โมน และระบบภูมิคุ้มกันทั้งหมด ถ้าเราอาบแดดแต่ใส่แว่นดำ เท่ากับปิดประตูสำคัญของระบบบำบัดจากธรรมชาติ

แต่ถ้าย้อนกลับไปก่อนหน้านั้นอีกนิด เราจะเจอ “ต้นฉบับของแนวคิดแสงบำบัด” อยู่ที่ ดร.นีลส์ ฟินเซน (Dr. Niels Ryberg Finsen) นายแพทย์ชาวเดนมาร์ก ผู้ได้รับ รางวัลโนเบลสาขาสรีรวิทยาหรือการแพทย์ ในปี ค.ศ. 1903 จากการใช้แสงสว่างในการรักษาโรค Lupus vulgaris ซึ่งเป็นวัณโรคชนิดเรื้อรังที่แสดงออกบนผิวหนัง โดยเขาออกแบบอุปกรณ์ “Finsen Lamp” เพื่อฉายแสงตรงเข้าไปรักษาเซลล์ผิวโดยเฉพาะ และถือเป็นบิดาแห่ง Phototherapy ยุคใหม่

ทำไมแค่ “แดด” ถึงมีฤทธิ์บำบัด? แสงแดดคือคลังยาแห่งธรรมชาติอย่างแท้จริง เพราะประกอบด้วยรังสี UV หลายชนิด โดยเฉพาะ UVB ที่กระตุ้นให้ผิวหนังสร้าง วิตามินดี (Vitamin D3) ซึ่งมีบทบาทเสมือนฮอร์โมนที่ควบคุมระบบภูมิคุ้มกัน การอักเสบ และการดูดซึมแร่ธาตุต่าง ๆ เช่น แคลเซียมและแมกนีเซียม

แต่แดดไม่ได้มีแค่ UV แสงแดดในช่วงเช้ายังเต็มไปด้วยคลื่นแสงสีแดงและอินฟราเรดใกล้ (Near Infrared Light) ซึ่งมีบทบาทสำคัญในการซ่อมแซมไมโทคอนเดรีย—the powerhouse of the cell และช่วยกระตุ้นการหลั่งไนตริกออกไซด์ในหลอดเลือด ทำให้ระบบไหลเวียนโลหิตดีขึ้น ความดันสมดุลขึ้น และฟื้นฟูอวัยวะลึก ๆ ได้อย่างเงียบ ๆ

พูดง่าย ๆ คือ แดดเช้า = เติมแบตชีวภาพ ยิ่งแสงอาทิตย์กระทบผิวเราผ่าน “ดวงตาเปล่า” (โดยไม่ใส่แว่นกันแดดในช่วงเช้า) ก็ยิ่งช่วย “รีเซ็ตนาฬิกาชีวภาพ” ให้เราตื่นตรงเวลา หลับลึกขึ้น และเพิ่มการหลั่งเมลาโทนินในตอนค่ำโดยอัตโนมัติ

ในโลกที่คนวิ่งหาฮอร์โมนจากขวด การนอนตากแดด 10–20 นาทีต่อวัน กลับกลายเป็นเวทมนตร์ราคาถูกที่เรามองข้าม

และงานวิจัยจาก มหาวิทยาลัยเอดินบะระ (University of Edinburgh) ประเทศสกอตแลนด์ ก็ได้ยืนยันว่า แสงแดดมีส่วนช่วยลดความดันโลหิตได้จริง โดยไม่จำเป็นต้องพึ่งวิตามินดีเลยด้วยซ้ำ เพราะเมื่อแสงยูวีจากดวงอาทิตย์สัมผัสผิวหนัง จะกระตุ้นให้เกิดการปลดปล่อย “ไนตริกออกไซด์” (Nitric Oxide) จากชั้นผิวเข้าสู่ระบบหมุนเวียนโลหิต ซึ่งมีผลทำให้หลอดเลือดขยายตัว ความดันโลหิตลดลง และลดความเสี่ยงโรคหัวใจอย่างเห็นผล

นี่แปลว่าแสงแดดไม่เพียงแค่สว่าง แต่มันกำลัง “พูดภาษาเคมี” กับร่างกายเราอย่างเงียบ ๆ ทุกเช้า

ในยุคที่การแพทย์พัฒนาไปสุดทาง เทคโนโลยีผ่าตัดทำได้ถึงระดับนาโนเมตร กลับมีหมอบางคนหันกลับมาบอกว่า “คุณแค่ต้องออกไปรับแดดเช้า” เพื่อให้ร่างกายฟื้นตัวดีกว่าการพึ่งยาเพียงอย่างเดียว ดีไหมหล่ะ แต่ขอโทษทีคุณหมอที่บอกให้ไปตากแดดช่างมีน้อยเหลือเกินเมื่อดูในภาพรวม

Heliotherapy จึงไม่ใช่แค่การอาบแดด แต่คือการกลับไปเชื่อมโยงกับวงจรธรรมชาติ เหมือนคนโบราณที่เคารพดวงอาทิตย์ เพราะเขารู้ว่าพระอาทิตย์ไม่เคยหลอกเรา

ขณะที่ fiat ผลิตเม็ดสีสังเคราะห์และวิตามินปลอม ๆ พระอาทิตย์กลับให้ของจริง โดยไม่เรียกเก็บภาษีด้วย

ใครมีเวลา วันนี้เฮียขอชวนไปยืนรับแสงเช้า 10 นาที ไม่ต้องทำอะไร แค่ยืนเฉย ๆ ให้แสงซึมเข้าตา ซึมลงผิว แล้วฟังเสียงเงียบของร่างกายที่กำลังซ่อมแซมตัวเอง เงียบจนเราอาจได้ยินเสียงหัวใจบอกว่า "ขอบคุณนะ ที่ออกมารับแดดกับฉัน" #SundaySpecialเราจะไปเป็นหมูแดดเดียว #pirateketo #ตำรับเอ๋

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Bald werde es verboten, alleine im Auto zu fahren, konnte man dieser Tage in verschiedenen spanischen Medien lesen. Die nationale Verkehrsbehörde (Dirección General de Tráfico, kurz DGT) werde Alleinfahrern das Leben schwer machen, wurde gemeldet. Konkret erörtere die Generaldirektion geeignete Sanktionen für Personen, die ohne Beifahrer im Privatauto unterwegs seien.

Das Alleinfahren sei zunehmend verpönt und ein Mentalitätswandel notwendig, hieß es. Dieser «Luxus» stehe im Widerspruch zu den Maßnahmen gegen Umweltverschmutzung, die in allen europäischen Ländern gefördert würden. In Frankreich sei es «bereits verboten, in der Hauptstadt allein zu fahren», behauptete Noticiastrabajo Huffpost in einer Zwischenüberschrift. Nur um dann im Text zu konkretisieren, dass die sogenannte «Umweltspur» auf der Pariser Ringautobahn gemeint war, die für Busse, Taxis und Fahrgemeinschaften reserviert ist. Ab Mai werden Verstöße dagegen mit einem Bußgeld geahndet.

Die DGT jedenfalls wolle bei der Umsetzung derartiger Maßnahmen nicht hinterherhinken. Diese Medienberichte, inklusive des angeblich bevorstehenden Verbots, beriefen sich auf Aussagen des Generaldirektors der Behörde, Pere Navarro, beim Mobilitätskongress Global Mobility Call im November letzten Jahres, wo es um «nachhaltige Mobilität» ging. Aus diesem Kontext stammt auch Navarros Warnung: «Die Zukunft des Verkehrs ist geteilt oder es gibt keine».

Die «Faktenchecker» kamen der Generaldirektion prompt zu Hilfe. Die DGT habe derlei Behauptungen zurückgewiesen und klargestellt, dass es keine Pläne gebe, Fahrten mit nur einer Person im Auto zu verbieten oder zu bestrafen. Bei solchen Meldungen handele es sich um Fake News. Teilweise wurde der Vorsitzende der spanischen «Rechtsaußen»-Partei Vox, Santiago Abascal, der Urheberschaft bezichtigt, weil er einen entsprechenden Artikel von La Gaceta kommentiert hatte.

Der Beschwichtigungsversuch der Art «niemand hat die Absicht» ist dabei erfahrungsgemäß eher ein Alarmzeichen als eine Beruhigung. Walter Ulbrichts Leugnung einer geplanten Berliner Mauer vom Juni 1961 ist vielen genauso in Erinnerung wie die Fake News-Warnungen des deutschen Bundesgesundheitsministeriums bezüglich Lockdowns im März 2020 oder diverse Äußerungen zu einer Impfpflicht ab 2020.

Aber Aufregung hin, Dementis her: Die Pressemitteilung der DGT zu dem Mobilitätskongress enthält in Wahrheit viel interessantere Informationen als «nur» einen Appell an den «guten» Bürger wegen der Bemühungen um die Lebensqualität in Großstädten oder einen möglichen obligatorischen Abschied vom Alleinfahren. Allerdings werden diese Details von Medien und sogenannten Faktencheckern geflissentlich übersehen, obwohl sie keineswegs versteckt sind. Die Auskünfte sind sehr aufschlussreich, wenn man genauer hinschaut.

Digitalisierung ist der Schlüssel für Kontrolle

Auf dem Kongress stellte die Verkehrsbehörde ihre Initiativen zur Förderung der «neuen Mobilität» vor, deren Priorität Sicherheit und Effizienz sei. Die vier konkreten Ansätze haben alle mit Digitalisierung, Daten, Überwachung und Kontrolle im großen Stil zu tun und werden unter dem Euphemismus der «öffentlich-privaten Partnerschaft» angepriesen. Auch lassen sie die transhumanistische Idee vom unzulänglichen Menschen erkennen, dessen Fehler durch «intelligente» technologische Infrastruktur kompensiert werden müssten.

Die Chefin des Bereichs «Verkehrsüberwachung» erklärte die Funktion des spanischen National Access Point (NAP), wobei sie betonte, wie wichtig Verkehrs- und Infrastrukturinformationen in Echtzeit seien. Der NAP ist «eine essenzielle Web-Applikation, die unter EU-Mandat erstellt wurde», kann man auf der Website der DGT nachlesen.

Das Mandat meint Regelungen zu einem einheitlichen europäischen Verkehrsraum, mit denen die Union mindestens seit 2010 den Aufbau einer digitalen Architektur mit offenen Schnittstellen betreibt. Damit begründet man auch «umfassende Datenbereitstellungspflichten im Bereich multimodaler Reiseinformationen». Jeder Mitgliedstaat musste einen NAP, also einen nationalen Zugangspunkt einrichten, der Zugang zu statischen und dynamischen Reise- und Verkehrsdaten verschiedener Verkehrsträger ermöglicht.

Diese Entwicklung ist heute schon weit fortgeschritten, auch und besonders in Spanien. Auf besagtem Kongress erläuterte die Leiterin des Bereichs «Telematik» die Plattform «DGT 3.0». Diese werde als Integrator aller Informationen genutzt, die von den verschiedenen öffentlichen und privaten Systemen, die Teil der Mobilität sind, bereitgestellt werden.

Es handele sich um eine Vermittlungsplattform zwischen Akteuren wie Fahrzeugherstellern, Anbietern von Navigationsdiensten oder Kommunen und dem Endnutzer, der die Verkehrswege benutzt. Alle seien auf Basis des Internets der Dinge (IOT) anonym verbunden, «um der vernetzten Gemeinschaft wertvolle Informationen zu liefern oder diese zu nutzen».

So sei DGT 3.0 «ein Zugangspunkt für einzigartige, kostenlose und genaue Echtzeitinformationen über das Geschehen auf den Straßen und in den Städten». Damit lasse sich der Verkehr nachhaltiger und vernetzter gestalten. Beispielsweise würden die Karten des Produktpartners Google dank der DGT-Daten 50 Millionen Mal pro Tag aktualisiert.

Des Weiteren informiert die Verkehrsbehörde über ihr SCADA-Projekt. Die Abkürzung steht für Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, zu deutsch etwa: Kontrollierte Steuerung und Datenerfassung. Mit SCADA kombiniert man Software und Hardware, um automatisierte Systeme zur Überwachung und Steuerung technischer Prozesse zu schaffen. Das SCADA-Projekt der DGT wird von Indra entwickelt, einem spanischen Beratungskonzern aus den Bereichen Sicherheit & Militär, Energie, Transport, Telekommunikation und Gesundheitsinformation.

Das SCADA-System der Behörde umfasse auch eine Videostreaming- und Videoaufzeichnungsplattform, die das Hochladen in die Cloud in Echtzeit ermöglicht, wie Indra erklärt. Dabei gehe es um Bilder, die von Überwachungskameras an Straßen aufgenommen wurden, sowie um Videos aus DGT-Hubschraubern und Drohnen. Ziel sei es, «die sichere Weitergabe von Videos an Dritte sowie die kontinuierliche Aufzeichnung und Speicherung von Bildern zur möglichen Analyse und späteren Nutzung zu ermöglichen».

Letzteres klingt sehr nach biometrischer Erkennung und Auswertung durch künstliche Intelligenz. Für eine bessere Datenübertragung wird derzeit die Glasfaserverkabelung entlang der Landstraßen und Autobahnen ausgebaut. Mit der Cloud sind die Amazon Web Services (AWS) gemeint, die spanischen Daten gehen somit direkt zu einem US-amerikanischen «Big Data»-Unternehmen.

Das Thema «autonomes Fahren», also Fahren ohne Zutun des Menschen, bildet den Abschluss der Betrachtungen der DGT. Zusammen mit dem Interessenverband der Automobilindustrie ANFAC (Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Automóviles y Camiones) sprach man auf dem Kongress über Strategien und Perspektiven in diesem Bereich. Die Lobbyisten hoffen noch in diesem Jahr 2025 auf einen normativen Rahmen zur erweiterten Unterstützung autonomer Technologien.

Wenn man derartige Informationen im Zusammenhang betrachtet, bekommt man eine Idee davon, warum zunehmend alles elektrisch und digital werden soll. Umwelt- und Mobilitätsprobleme in Städten, wie Luftverschmutzung, Lärmbelästigung, Platzmangel oder Staus, sind eine Sache. Mit dem Argument «emissionslos» wird jedoch eine Referenz zum CO2 und dem «menschengemachten Klimawandel» hergestellt, die Emotionen triggert. Und damit wird so ziemlich alles verkauft.

Letztlich aber gilt: Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird und je freigiebiger wir mit unseren Daten jeder Art sind, desto besser werden wir kontrollier-, steuer- und sogar abschaltbar. Irgendwann entscheiden KI-basierte Algorithmen, ob, wann, wie, wohin und mit wem wir uns bewegen dürfen. Über einen 15-Minuten-Radius geht dann möglicherweise nichts hinaus. Die Projekte auf diesem Weg sind ernst zu nehmen, real und schon weit fortgeschritten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c8841c9d:ae8048e2

What is Bitcoin ? Here are the fundamentals to understand the first crypto.

Created by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009, Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency with no central authority.

Censorship-resistant and peer-to-peer, it gives power to the people!

Check out my mind map for a dipper dive. #Bitcoin #Crypto #Cryptomindmap

\ \ Bitcoin runs on a blockchain—a distributed ledger secured by Nakamoto consensus & Proof of Work.

Miners earn BTC rewards by creating new blocks, while UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) prevents double-spending. A block is added to chain every \~10min. If parallel chains form, the longest chain wins, after 6 blocks, a transaction is considered final.

Transactions are transparent yet private. Check my older cryptomindmaps for more details.

Bitcoin Economics

With a hard cap of 21 million coins, Bitcoin’s supply halves every 4 years(next in 2028), creating scarcity The smallest unit? A Satoshi - 0.00000001 BTC.

This decreasing supply is creating scarcity which drives value but also fuels volatility, with bull runs and corrections shaping its price since day one

What can you do with Bitcoin? Let’s explore!

Bitcoin was intended for payments, it's evolving into "digital gold", a store of value for the internet age.

It enables cheap, easy cross-border transfers and acts as an inflation edge.

Its Lightning Network improves the scalability for digital payments.

Bitcoin’s Challenges

The main hurdles addressed to Bitcoin is the scalability. The low number of possible transactions per second (TPS). Solutions, such as Lightning Network, provide ways to increase usage.

The energy consumption of block production in Proof of Work debate rages . Critics call it is too much electricity, while supporters argue that it is the elegant way to valorize renewable energy and ensure top-notch security.

No central authority means slow consensus via Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) and there is no government regulation which can deter some adopters.

Bitcoin #Cryptomindmap

Thanks for reading! 🌟 Share your thoughts on Bitcoin !

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was nützt die schönste Schuldenbremse, wenn der Russe vor der Tür steht? \ Wir können uns verteidigen lernen oder alle Russisch lernen. \ Jens Spahn

In der Politik ist buchstäblich keine Idee zu riskant, kein Mittel zu schäbig und keine Lüge zu dreist, als dass sie nicht benutzt würden. Aber der Clou ist, dass diese Masche immer noch funktioniert, wenn nicht sogar immer besser. Ist das alles wirklich so schwer zu durchschauen? Mir fehlen langsam die Worte.

Aktuell werden sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland riesige Milliardenpakete für die Aufrüstung – also für die Rüstungsindustrie – geschnürt. Die EU will 800 Milliarden Euro locker machen, in Deutschland sollen es 500 Milliarden «Sondervermögen» sein. Verteidigung nennen das unsere «Führer», innerhalb der Union und auch an «unserer Ostflanke», der Ukraine.

Das nötige Feindbild konnte inzwischen signifikant erweitert werden. Schuld an allem und zudem gefährlich ist nicht mehr nur Putin, sondern jetzt auch Trump. Europa müsse sich sowohl gegen Russland als auch gegen die USA schützen und rüsten, wird uns eingetrichtert.

Und während durch Diplomatie genau dieser beiden Staaten gerade endlich mal Bewegung in die Bemühungen um einen Frieden oder wenigstens einen Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine kommt, rasselt man im moralisch überlegenen Zeigefinger-Europa so richtig mit dem Säbel.

Begleitet und gestützt wird der ganze Prozess – wie sollte es anders sein – von den «Qualitätsmedien». Dass Russland einen Angriff auf «Europa» plant, weiß nicht nur der deutsche Verteidigungsminister (und mit Abstand beliebteste Politiker) Pistorius, sondern dank ihnen auch jedes Kind. Uns bleiben nur noch wenige Jahre. Zum Glück bereitet sich die Bundeswehr schon sehr konkret auf einen Krieg vor.

Die FAZ und Corona-Gesundheitsminister Spahn markieren einen traurigen Höhepunkt. Hier haben sich «politische und publizistische Verantwortungslosigkeit propagandistisch gegenseitig befruchtet», wie es bei den NachDenkSeiten heißt. Die Aussage Spahns in dem Interview, «der Russe steht vor der Tür», ist das eine. Die Zeitung verschärfte die Sache jedoch, indem sie das Zitat explizit in den Titel übernahm, der in einer ersten Version scheinbar zu harmlos war.

Eine große Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung findet Aufrüstung und mehr Schulden toll, wie ARD und ZDF sehr passend ermittelt haben wollen. Ähnliches gelte für eine noch stärkere militärische Unterstützung der Ukraine. Etwas skeptischer seien die Befragten bezüglich der Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten dorthin, aber immerhin etwa fifty-fifty.

Eigentlich ist jedoch die Meinung der Menschen in «unseren Demokratien» irrelevant. Sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland sind die «Eliten» offenbar der Ansicht, der Souverän habe in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden sowie von aberwitzigen astronomischen Schulden kein Wörtchen mitzureden. Frau von der Leyen möchte über 150 Milliarden aus dem Gesamtpaket unter Verwendung von Artikel 122 des EU-Vertrags ohne das Europäische Parlament entscheiden – wenn auch nicht völlig kritiklos.

In Deutschland wollen CDU/CSU und SPD zur Aufweichung der «Schuldenbremse» mehrere Änderungen des Grundgesetzes durch das abgewählte Parlament peitschen. Dieser Versuch, mit dem alten Bundestag eine Zweidrittelmehrheit zu erzielen, die im neuen nicht mehr gegeben wäre, ist mindestens verfassungsrechtlich umstritten.

Das Manöver scheint aber zu funktionieren. Heute haben die Grünen zugestimmt, nachdem Kanzlerkandidat Merz läppische 100 Milliarden für «irgendwas mit Klima» zugesichert hatte. Die Abstimmung im Plenum soll am kommenden Dienstag erfolgen – nur eine Woche, bevor sich der neu gewählte Bundestag konstituieren wird.

Interessant sind die Argumente, die BlackRocker Merz für seine Attacke auf Grundgesetz und Demokratie ins Feld führt. Abgesehen von der angeblichen Eile, «unsere Verteidigungsfähigkeit deutlich zu erhöhen» (ausgelöst unter anderem durch «die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz und die Ereignisse im Weißen Haus»), ließ uns der CDU-Chef wissen, dass Deutschland einfach auf die internationale Bühne zurück müsse. Merz schwadronierte gefährlich mehrdeutig:

«Die ganze Welt schaut in diesen Tagen und Wochen auf Deutschland. Wir haben in der Europäischen Union und auf der Welt eine Aufgabe, die weit über die Grenzen unseres eigenen Landes hinausgeht.»

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Recently we have seen a wave of high profile X accounts hacked. These attacks have exposed the fragility of the status quo security model used by modern social media platforms like X. Many users have asked if nostr fixes this, so lets dive in. How do these types of attacks translate into the world of nostr apps? For clarity, I will use X’s security model as representative of most big tech social platforms and compare it to nostr.

The Status Quo

On X, you never have full control of your account. Ultimately to use it requires permission from the company. They can suspend your account or limit your distribution. Theoretically they can even post from your account at will. An X account is tied to an email and password. Users can also opt into two factor authentication, which adds an extra layer of protection, a login code generated by an app. In theory, this setup works well, but it places a heavy burden on users. You need to create a strong, unique password and safeguard it. You also need to ensure your email account and phone number remain secure, as attackers can exploit these to reset your credentials and take over your account. Even if you do everything responsibly, there is another weak link in X infrastructure itself. The platform’s infrastructure allows accounts to be reset through its backend. This could happen maliciously by an employee or through an external attacker who compromises X’s backend. When an account is compromised, the legitimate user often gets locked out, unable to post or regain control without contacting X’s support team. That process can be slow, frustrating, and sometimes fruitless if support denies the request or cannot verify your identity. Often times support will require users to provide identification info in order to regain access, which represents a privacy risk. The centralized nature of X means you are ultimately at the mercy of the company’s systems and staff.

Nostr Requires Responsibility

Nostr flips this model radically. Users do not need permission from a company to access their account, they can generate as many accounts as they want, and cannot be easily censored. The key tradeoff here is that users have to take complete responsibility for their security. Instead of relying on a username, password, and corporate servers, nostr uses a private key as the sole credential for your account. Users generate this key and it is their responsibility to keep it safe. As long as you have your key, you can post. If someone else gets it, they can post too. It is that simple. This design has strong implications. Unlike X, there is no backend reset option. If your key is compromised or lost, there is no customer support to call. In a compromise scenario, both you and the attacker can post from the account simultaneously. Neither can lock the other out, since nostr relays simply accept whatever is signed with a valid key.

The benefit? No reliance on proprietary corporate infrastructure.. The negative? Security rests entirely on how well you protect your key.

Future Nostr Security Improvements

For many users, nostr’s standard security model, storing a private key on a phone with an encrypted cloud backup, will likely be sufficient. It is simple and reasonably secure. That said, nostr’s strength lies in its flexibility as an open protocol. Users will be able to choose between a range of security models, balancing convenience and protection based on need.

One promising option is a web of trust model for key rotation. Imagine pre-selecting a group of trusted friends. If your account is compromised, these people could collectively sign an event announcing the compromise to the network and designate a new key as your legitimate one. Apps could handle this process seamlessly in the background, notifying followers of the switch without much user interaction. This could become a popular choice for average users, but it is not without tradeoffs. It requires trust in your chosen web of trust, which might not suit power users or large organizations. It also has the issue that some apps may not recognize the key rotation properly and followers might get confused about which account is “real.”

For those needing higher security, there is the option of multisig using FROST (Flexible Round-Optimized Schnorr Threshold). In this setup, multiple keys must sign off on every action, including posting and updating a profile. A hacker with just one key could not do anything. This is likely overkill for most users due to complexity and inconvenience, but it could be a game changer for large organizations, companies, and governments. Imagine the White House nostr account requiring signatures from multiple people before a post goes live, that would be much more secure than the status quo big tech model.

Another option are hardware signers, similar to bitcoin hardware wallets. Private keys are kept on secure, offline devices, separate from the internet connected phone or computer you use to broadcast events. This drastically reduces the risk of remote hacks, as private keys never touches the internet. It can be used in combination with multisig setups for extra protection. This setup is much less convenient and probably overkill for most but could be ideal for governments, companies, or other high profile accounts.

---

Nostr’s security model is not perfect but is robust and versatile. Ultimately users are in control and security is their responsibility. Apps will give users multiple options to choose from and users will choose what best fits their need.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

«Wir brauchen eine digitale Brandmauer gegen den Faschismus», schreibt der Chaos Computer Club (CCC) auf seiner Website. Unter diesem Motto präsentierte er letzte Woche einen Forderungskatalog, mit dem sich 24 Organisationen an die kommende Bundesregierung wenden. Der Koalitionsvertrag müsse sich daran messen lassen, verlangen sie.

In den drei Kategorien «Bekenntnis gegen Überwachung», «Schutz und Sicherheit für alle» sowie «Demokratie im digitalen Raum» stellen die Unterzeichner, zu denen auch Amnesty International und Das NETTZ gehören, unter anderem die folgenden «Mindestanforderungen»:

• Verbot biometrischer Massenüberwachung des öffentlichen Raums sowie der ungezielten biometrischen Auswertung des Internets.
• Anlasslose und massenhafte Vorratsdatenspeicherung wird abgelehnt.
• Automatisierte Datenanalysen der Informationsbestände der Strafverfolgungsbehörden sowie jede Form von Predictive Policing oder automatisiertes Profiling von Menschen werden abgelehnt.
• Einführung eines Rechts auf Verschlüsselung. Die Bundesregierung soll sich dafür einsetzen, die Chatkontrolle auf europäischer Ebene zu verhindern.
• Anonyme und pseudonyme Nutzung des Internets soll geschützt und ermöglicht werden.
• Bekämpfung «privaten Machtmissbrauchs von Big-Tech-Unternehmen» durch durchsetzungsstarke, unabhängige und grundsätzlich föderale Aufsichtsstrukturen.
• Einführung eines digitalen Gewaltschutzgesetzes, unter Berücksichtigung «gruppenbezogener digitaler Gewalt» und die Förderung von Beratungsangeboten.
• Ein umfassendes Förderprogramm für digitale öffentliche Räume, die dezentral organisiert und quelloffen programmiert sind, soll aufgelegt werden.

Es sei ein Irrglaube, dass zunehmende Überwachung einen Zugewinn an Sicherheit darstelle, ist eines der Argumente der Initiatoren. Sicherheit erfordere auch, dass Menschen anonym und vertraulich kommunizieren können und ihre Privatsphäre geschützt wird.

Gesunde digitale Räume lebten auch von einem demokratischen Diskurs, lesen wir in dem Papier. Es sei Aufgabe des Staates, Grundrechte zu schützen. Dazu gehöre auch, Menschenrechte und demokratische Werte, insbesondere Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität zu fördern sowie den Missbrauch von Maßnahmen, Befugnissen und Infrastrukturen durch «die Feinde der Demokratie» zu verhindern.

Man ist geneigt zu fragen, wo denn die Autoren «den Faschismus» sehen, den es zu bekämpfen gelte. Die meisten der vorgetragenen Forderungen und Argumente finden sicher breite Unterstützung, denn sie beschreiben offenkundig gängige, kritikwürdige Praxis. Die Aushebelung der Privatsphäre, der Redefreiheit und anderer Grundrechte im Namen der Sicherheit wird bereits jetzt massiv durch die aktuellen «demokratischen Institutionen» und ihre «durchsetzungsstarken Aufsichtsstrukturen» betrieben.

Ist «der Faschismus» also die EU und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten? Nein, die «faschistische Gefahr», gegen die man eine digitale Brandmauer will, kommt nach Ansicht des CCC und seiner Partner aus den Vereinigten Staaten. Private Überwachung und Machtkonzentration sind dabei weltweit schon lange Realität, jetzt endlich müssen sie jedoch bekämpft werden. In dem Papier heißt es:

«Die willkürliche und antidemokratische Machtausübung der Tech-Oligarchen um Präsident Trump erfordert einen Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Digitalpolitik. (...) Die aktuellen Geschehnisse in den USA zeigen auf, wie Datensammlungen und -analyse genutzt werden können, um einen Staat handstreichartig zu übernehmen, seine Strukturen nachhaltig zu beschädigen, Widerstand zu unterbinden und marginalisierte Gruppen zu verfolgen.»

Wer auf der anderen Seite dieser Brandmauer stehen soll, ist also klar. Es sind die gleichen «Feinde unserer Demokratie», die seit Jahren in diese Ecke gedrängt werden. Es sind die gleichen Andersdenkenden, Regierungskritiker und Friedensforderer, die unter dem großzügigen Dach des Bundesprogramms «Demokratie leben» einem «kontinuierlichen Echt- und Langzeitmonitoring» wegen der Etikettierung «digitaler Hass» unterzogen werden.

Dass die 24 Organisationen praktisch auch die Bekämpfung von Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon und anderen fordern, entbehrt nicht der Komik. Diese fallen aber sicher unter das Stichwort «Machtmissbrauch von Big-Tech-Unternehmen». Gleichzeitig verlangen die Lobbyisten implizit zum Beispiel die Förderung des Nostr-Netzwerks, denn hier finden wir dezentral organisierte und quelloffen programmierte digitale Räume par excellence, obendrein zensurresistent. Das wiederum dürfte in der Politik weniger gut ankommen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 0ef78f78:1cc6bede

In a world of relentless change and mounting political chaos, developing a carefully reasoned worldview feels both urgent and indispensable. Modern existence throws us into a tempest of technological leaps, ethical dilemmas, and existential questions, pressing us to find clarity amid the chaos. Philosophy rises to meet this challenge—not as a leisurely diversion, but as a disciplined effort to probe truth and cultivate wisdom.

This blog sets out to invite readers to wrestle with life’s big questions and their relevance now. My aim is to unpack foundational concepts with precision, tying them to the realities of our time. This space is for serious reflection—rigorous yet accessible—where we can scrutinize the beliefs that steer our lives.

Philosophy as Theory Making About Theories I’ve always been struck by an idea from Wilfred Sellars: philosophy is about crafting theories about our theories. It’s a process of stepping back to examine the very frameworks we use to make sense of the world. As Sellars put it, “The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term.” To me, this captures philosophy’s essence—it’s not just about asking what we believe, but why we believe it, and how those beliefs hold together. We all operate with answers to life’s deepest questions, whether we’ve thought them through or not, and they form the silent foundation of our worldview.

Here are some of the questions philosophy urges us to confront:

What gives human life its purpose? Are our choices genuinely free, or shaped by unseen forces? How do we discern right from wrong? Is certain knowledge possible, or is truth forever out of reach? What lies beyond death? Is there an ultimate reality or higher power? What makes a life meaningful? These aren’t idle musings—they quietly shape how we act, what we value, and how we see the world. As Socrates cautioned, an unexamined life risks being lived without purpose or understanding. Philosophy, as theory making about theories, pushes us to take charge of our beliefs, testing and refining them through reason.

Why This Matters Now Today, the need for this kind of reflection is sharper than ever. We’re awash in information and clashing viewpoints, each vying for our allegiance. Meanwhile, breakthroughs like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and global connectivity force us to rethink what it means to be human. How do we stay human when machines rival our abilities? How do we judge right and wrong in a world of endless options?

Philosophy equips us to tackle these questions with clarity. It teaches us to pause, question what we assume, and construct thoughtful answers to the problems we face. By engaging in this theory-making process, we gain insight into both the world and ourselves.

Come Along for the Ride This blog is an open call to dive into these ideas together. In the posts to come, I’ll explore philosophical concepts and their real-world stakes, hoping to stir curiosity and conversation. I’m not here to hand out final answers, but to deepen our grasp of the questions—and maybe inspire us to live with more intention.

Philosophy is a journey of discovery, blending intellectual rigor with an embrace of complexity. As we go forward, I’d love for you to join me in this exploration—one that offers not just understanding, but a more deliberate way of being.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Before I saw those X right-wing political “influencers” parading their Epstein binders in that PR stunt, I’d already posted this on Nostr, an open protocol. 

“Today, the world’s attention will likely fixate on Epstein, governmental failures in addressing horrific abuse cases, and the influential figures who perpetrate such acts—yet few will center the victims and survivors in the conversation. The survivors of Epstein went to law enforcement and very little happened. The survivors tried to speak to the corporate press and the corporate press knowingly covered for him. In situations like these social media can serve as one of the only ways for a survivor’s voice to be heard. 

It’s becoming increasingly evident that the line between centralized corporate social media and the state is razor-thin, if it exists at all. Time and again, the state shields powerful abusers when it’s politically expedient to do so. In this climate, a survivor attempting to expose someone like Epstein on a corporate tech platform faces an uphill battle—there’s no assurance their voice would even break through. Their story wouldn’t truly belong to them; it’d be at the mercy of the platform, subject to deletion at a whim. Nostr, though, offers a lifeline—a censorship-resistant space where survivors can share their truths, no matter how untouchable the abuser might seem. A survivor could remain anonymous here if they took enough steps. 

Nostr holds real promise for amplifying survivor voices. And if you’re here daily, tossing out memes, take heart: you’re helping build a foundation for those who desperately need to be heard.“

That post is untouchable—no CEO, company, employee, or government can delete it. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t take it down myself. The post will outlive me on the protocol. 

The cozy alliance between the state and corporate social media hit me hard during that right-wing X “influencer” PR stunt. Elon owns X. Elon’s a special government employee. X pays those influencers to post. We don’t know who else pays them to post. Those influencers are spurred on by both the government and X to manage the Epstein case narrative. It wasn’t survivors standing there, grinning for photos—it was paid influencers, gatekeepers orchestrating yet another chance to re-exploit the already exploited.

The bond between the state and corporate social media is tight. If the other Epsteins out there are ever to be unmasked, I wouldn’t bet on a survivor’s story staying safe with a corporate tech platform, the government, any social media influencer, or mainstream journalist. Right now, only a protocol can hand survivors the power to truly own their narrative.

I don’t have anything against Elon—I’ve actually been a big supporter. I’m just stating it as I see it. X isn’t censorship resistant and they have an algorithm that they choose not the user. Corporate tech platforms like X can be a better fit for some survivors. X has safety tools and content moderation, making it a solid option for certain individuals. Grok can be a big help for survivors looking for resources or support! As a survivor, you know what works best for you, and safety should always come first—keep that front and center.

That said, a protocol is a game-changer for cases where the powerful are likely to censor. During China's # MeToo movement, survivors faced heavy censorship on social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat, where posts about sexual harassment were quickly removed, and hashtags like # MeToo or "woyeshi" were blocked by government and platform filters. To bypass this, activists turned to blockchain technology encoding their stories—like Yue Xin’s open letter about a Peking University case—into transaction metadata. This made the information tamper-proof and publicly accessible, resisting censorship since blockchain data can’t be easily altered or deleted.

I posted this on X 2/28/25. I wanted to try my first long post on a nostr client. The Epstein cover up is ongoing so it’s still relevant, unfortunately.

If you are a survivor or loved one who is reading this and needs support please reach out to: National Sexual Assault Hotline 24/7 https://rainn.org/

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «Eliten» führen bereits groß angelegte Pilotprojekte für eine Zukunft durch, die sie wollen und wir nicht. Das schreibt der OffGuardian in einem Update zum Thema «EU-Brieftasche für die digitale Identität». Das Portal weist darauf hin, dass die Akteure dabei nicht gerade zimperlich vorgehen und auch keinen Hehl aus ihren Absichten machen. Transition News hat mehrfach darüber berichtet, zuletzt hier und hier.

Mit der EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI-Brieftasche) sei eine einzige von der Regierung herausgegebene App geplant, die Ihre medizinischen Daten, Beschäftigungsdaten, Reisedaten, Bildungsdaten, Impfdaten, Steuerdaten, Finanzdaten sowie (potenziell) Kopien Ihrer Unterschrift, Fingerabdrücke, Gesichtsscans, Stimmproben und DNA enthält. So fasst der OffGuardian die eindrucksvolle Liste möglicher Einsatzbereiche zusammen.

Auch Dokumente wie der Personalausweis oder der Führerschein können dort in elektronischer Form gespeichert werden. Bis 2026 sind alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten dazu verpflichtet, Ihren Bürgern funktionierende und frei verfügbare digitale «Brieftaschen» bereitzustellen.

Die Menschen würden diese App nutzen, so das Portal, um Zahlungen vorzunehmen, Kredite zu beantragen, ihre Steuern zu zahlen, ihre Rezepte abzuholen, internationale Grenzen zu überschreiten, Unternehmen zu gründen, Arzttermine zu buchen, sich um Stellen zu bewerben und sogar digitale Verträge online zu unterzeichnen.

All diese Daten würden auf ihrem Mobiltelefon gespeichert und mit den Regierungen von neunzehn Ländern (plus der Ukraine) sowie über 140 anderen öffentlichen und privaten Partnern ausgetauscht. Von der Deutschen Bank über das ukrainische Ministerium für digitalen Fortschritt bis hin zu Samsung Europe. Unternehmen und Behörden würden auf diese Daten im Backend zugreifen, um «automatisierte Hintergrundprüfungen» durchzuführen.

Der Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (VZBV) habe Bedenken geäußert, dass eine solche App «Risiken für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und der Daten» berge, berichtet das Portal. Die einzige Antwort darauf laute: «Richtig, genau dafür ist sie ja da!»

Das alles sei keine Hypothese, betont der OffGuardian. Es sei vielmehr «Potential». Damit ist ein EU-Projekt gemeint, in dessen Rahmen Dutzende öffentliche und private Einrichtungen zusammenarbeiten, «um eine einheitliche Vision der digitalen Identität für die Bürger der europäischen Länder zu definieren». Dies ist nur eines der groß angelegten Pilotprojekte, mit denen Prototypen und Anwendungsfälle für die EUDI-Wallet getestet werden. Es gibt noch mindestens drei weitere.

Den Ball der digitalen ID-Systeme habe die Covid-«Pandemie» über die «Impfpässe» ins Rollen gebracht. Seitdem habe das Thema an Schwung verloren. Je näher wir aber der vollständigen Einführung der EUid kämen, desto mehr Propaganda der Art «Warum wir eine digitale Brieftasche brauchen» könnten wir in den Mainstream-Medien erwarten, prognostiziert der OffGuardian. Vielleicht müssten wir schon nach dem nächsten großen «Grund», dem nächsten «katastrophalen katalytischen Ereignis» Ausschau halten. Vermutlich gebe es bereits Pläne, warum die Menschen plötzlich eine digitale ID-Brieftasche brauchen würden.

Die Entwicklung geht jedenfalls stetig weiter in genau diese Richtung. Beispielsweise hat Jordanien angekündigt, die digitale biometrische ID bei den nächsten Wahlen zur Verifizierung der Wähler einzuführen. Man wolle «den Papierkrieg beenden und sicherstellen, dass die gesamte Kette bis zu den nächsten Parlamentswahlen digitalisiert wird», heißt es. Absehbar ist, dass dabei einige Wahlberechtigte «auf der Strecke bleiben» werden, wie im Fall von Albanien geschehen.

Derweil würden die Briten gerne ihre Privatsphäre gegen Effizienz eintauschen, behauptet Tony Blair. Der Ex-Premier drängte kürzlich erneut auf digitale Identitäten und Gesichtserkennung. Blair ist Gründer einer Denkfabrik für globalen Wandel, Anhänger globalistischer Technokratie und «moderner Infrastruktur».

Abschließend warnt der OffGuardian vor der Illusion, Trump und Musk würden den US-Bürgern «diesen Schlamassel ersparen». Das Department of Government Efficiency werde sich auf die digitale Identität stürzen. Was könne schließlich «effizienter» sein als eine einzige App, die für alles verwendet wird? Der Unterschied bestehe nur darin, dass die US-Version vielleicht eher privat als öffentlich sei – sofern es da überhaupt noch einen wirklichen Unterschied gebe.

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ständige Lügen und Unterstellungen, permanent falsche Fürsorge \ können Bausteine von emotionaler Manipulation sein. Mit dem Zweck, \ Macht und Kontrolle über eine andere Person auszuüben. \ Apotheken Umschau

Irgendetwas muss passiert sein: «Gaslighting» ist gerade Thema in vielen Medien. Heute bin ich nach längerer Zeit mal wieder über dieses Stichwort gestolpert. Das war in einem Artikel von Norbert Häring über Manipulationen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). In diesem Fall ging es um eine Pressemitteilung vom Donnerstag zum «viel zu warmen» Winter 2024/25.

Häring wirft der Behörde vor, dreist zu lügen und Dinge auszulassen, um die Klimaangst wach zu halten. Was der Leser beim DWD nicht erfahre, sei, dass dieser Winter kälter als die drei vorangegangenen und kälter als der Durchschnitt der letzten zehn Jahre gewesen sei. Stattdessen werde der falsche Eindruck vermittelt, es würde ungebremst immer wärmer.

Wem also der zu Ende gehende Winter eher kalt vorgekommen sein sollte, mit dessen Empfinden stimme wohl etwas nicht. Das jedenfalls wolle der DWD uns einreden, so der Wirtschaftsjournalist. Und damit sind wir beim Thema Gaslighting.

Als Gaslighting wird eine Form psychischer Manipulation bezeichnet, mit der die Opfer desorientiert und zutiefst verunsichert werden, indem ihre eigene Wahrnehmung als falsch bezeichnet wird. Der Prozess führt zu Angst und Realitätsverzerrung sowie zur Zerstörung des Selbstbewusstseins. Die Bezeichnung kommt von dem britischen Theaterstück «Gas Light» aus dem Jahr 1938, in dem ein Mann mit grausamen Psychotricks seine Frau in den Wahnsinn treibt.

Damit Gaslighting funktioniert, muss das Opfer dem Täter vertrauen. Oft wird solcher Psychoterror daher im privaten oder familiären Umfeld beschrieben, ebenso wie am Arbeitsplatz. Jedoch eignen sich die Prinzipien auch perfekt zur Manipulation der Massen. Vermeintliche Autoritäten wie Ärzte und Wissenschaftler, oder «der fürsorgliche Staat» und Institutionen wie die UNO oder die WHO wollen uns doch nichts Böses. Auch Staatsmedien, Faktenchecker und diverse NGOs wurden zu «vertrauenswürdigen Quellen» erklärt. Das hat seine Wirkung.

Warum das Thema Gaslighting derzeit scheinbar so populär ist, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Es sind aber gerade in den letzten Tagen und Wochen auffällig viele Artikel dazu erschienen, und zwar nicht nur von Psychologen. Die Frankfurter Rundschau hat gleich mehrere publiziert, und Anwälte interessieren sich dafür offenbar genauso wie Apotheker.

Die Apotheken Umschau machte sogar auf «Medical Gaslighting» aufmerksam. Davon spreche man, wenn Mediziner Symptome nicht ernst nähmen oder wenn ein gesundheitliches Problem vom behandelnden Arzt «schnöde heruntergespielt» oder abgetan würde. Kommt Ihnen das auch irgendwie bekannt vor? Der Begriff sei allerdings irreführend, da er eine manipulierende Absicht unterstellt, die «nicht gewährleistet» sei.

Apropos Gaslighting: Die noch amtierende deutsche Bundesregierung meldete heute, es gelte, «weiter [sic!] gemeinsam daran zu arbeiten, einen gerechten und dauerhaften Frieden für die Ukraine zu erreichen». Die Ukraine, wo sich am Montag «der völkerrechtswidrige Angriffskrieg zum dritten Mal jährte», verteidige ihr Land und «unsere gemeinsamen Werte».

Merken Sie etwas? Das Demokratieverständnis mag ja tatsächlich inzwischen in beiden Ländern ähnlich traurig sein. Bezüglich Friedensbemühungen ist meine Wahrnehmung jedoch eine andere. Das muss an meinem Gedächtnis liegen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Europa – das Ganze ist eine wunderbare Idee, \ aber das war der Kommunismus auch. \ Loriot

«Europa hat fertig», könnte man unken, und das wäre nicht einmal sehr verwegen. Mit solch einer Einschätzung stünden wir nicht alleine, denn die Stimmen in diese Richtung mehren sich. Der französische Präsident Emmanuel Macron warnte schon letztes Jahr davor, dass «unser Europa sterben könnte». Vermutlich hatte er dabei andere Gefahren im Kopf als jetzt der ungarische Ministerpräsident Viktor Orbán, der ein «baldiges Ende der EU» prognostizierte. Das Ergebnis könnte allerdings das gleiche sein.

Neben vordergründigen Themenbereichen wie Wirtschaft, Energie und Sicherheit ist das eigentliche Problem jedoch die obskure Mischung aus aufgegebener Souveränität und geschwollener Arroganz, mit der europäische Politiker:innende unterschiedlicher Couleur aufzutreten pflegen. Und das Tüpfelchen auf dem i ist die bröckelnde Legitimation politischer Institutionen dadurch, dass die Stimmen großer Teile der Bevölkerung seit Jahren auf vielfältige Weise ausgegrenzt werden.

Um «UnsereDemokratie» steht es schlecht. Dass seine Mandate immer schwächer werden, merkt natürlich auch unser «Führungspersonal». Entsprechend werden die Maßnahmen zur Gängelung, Überwachung und Manipulation der Bürger ständig verzweifelter. Parallel dazu plustern sich in Paris Macron, Scholz und einige andere noch einmal mächtig in Sachen Verteidigung und «Kriegstüchtigkeit» auf.

Momentan gilt es auch, das Überschwappen covidiotischer und verschwörungsideologischer Auswüchse aus den USA nach Europa zu vermeiden. So ein «MEGA» (Make Europe Great Again) können wir hier nicht gebrauchen. Aus den Vereinigten Staaten kommen nämlich furchtbare Nachrichten. Beispielsweise wurde einer der schärfsten Kritiker der Corona-Maßnahmen kürzlich zum Gesundheitsminister ernannt. Dieser setzt sich jetzt für eine Neubewertung der mRNA-«Impfstoffe» ein, was durchaus zu einem Entzug der Zulassungen führen könnte.

Der europäischen Version von «Verteidigung der Demokratie» setzte der US-Vizepräsident J. D. Vance auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz sein Verständnis entgegen: «Demokratie stärken, indem wir unseren Bürgern erlauben, ihre Meinung zu sagen». Das Abschalten von Medien, das Annullieren von Wahlen oder das Ausschließen von Menschen vom politischen Prozess schütze gar nichts. Vielmehr sei dies der todsichere Weg, die Demokratie zu zerstören.

In der Schweiz kamen seine Worte deutlich besser an als in den meisten europäischen NATO-Ländern. Bundespräsidentin Karin Keller-Sutter lobte die Rede und interpretierte sie als «Plädoyer für die direkte Demokratie». Möglicherweise zeichne sich hier eine außenpolitische Kehrtwende in Richtung integraler Neutralität ab, meint mein Kollege Daniel Funk. Das wären doch endlich mal ein paar gute Nachrichten.

Von der einstigen Idee einer europäischen Union mit engeren Beziehungen zwischen den Staaten, um Konflikte zu vermeiden und das Wohlergehen der Bürger zu verbessern, sind wir meilenweit abgekommen. Der heutige korrupte Verbund unter technokratischer Leitung ähnelt mehr einem Selbstbedienungsladen mit sehr begrenztem Zugang. Die EU-Wahlen im letzten Sommer haben daran ebenso wenig geändert, wie die Bundestagswahl am kommenden Sonntag darauf einen Einfluss haben wird.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 0c469779:4b21d8b0

Sobre el amor

Mi percepción del amor cambió con el tiempo. Leer literatura rusa, principalmente a Dostoevsky, te cambia la perspectiva sobre el amor y la vida en general.

Por mucho tiempo mi visión sobre la vida es que la misma se basa en el sufrimiento: también la Biblia dice esto. El amor es igual, en el amor se sufre y se banca a la otra persona. El problema es que hay una distinción de sufrimientos que por mucho tiempo no tuve en cuenta. Está el sufrimiento del sacrificio y el sufrimiento masoquista. Para mí eran indistintos.

Para mí el ideal era Aliosha y Natasha de Humillados y Ofendidos: estar con alguien que me amase tanto como Natasha a Aliosha, un amor inclusive autodestructivo para Natasha, pero real. Tiene algo de épico, inalcanzable. Un sufrimiento extremo, redentor, es una vara altísima que en la vida cotidiana no se manifiesta. O el amor de Sonia a Raskolnikov, quien se fue hasta Siberia mientras estuvo en prisión para que no se quede solo en Crimen y Castigo.

Este es el tipo de amor que yo esperaba. Y como no me pasó nada tan extremo y las situaciones que llegan a ocurrir en mi vida están lejos de ser tan extremas, me parecía hasta poco lo que estaba pidiendo y que nadie pueda quedarse conmigo me parecía insuficiente.

Ahora pienso que el amor no tiene por qué ser así. Es un pensamiento nuevo que todavía estoy construyendo, y me di cuenta cuando fui a la iglesia, a pesar de que no soy cristiano. La filosofía cristiana me gusta. Va conmigo. Tiene un enfoque de humildad, superación y comunidad que me recuerda al estoicismo.

El amor se trata de resaltar lo mejor que hay en el otro. Se trata de ser un plus, de ayudar. Por eso si uno no está en su mejor etapa, si no se está cómodo con uno mismo, no se puede amar de verdad. El amor empieza en uno mismo.

Los libros son un espejo, no necesariamente vas a aprender de ellos, sino que te muestran quién sos. Resaltás lo que te importa. Por eso a pesar de saber los tipos de amores que hay en los trabajos de Dostoevsky, cometí los mismos errores varias veces.

Ser mejor depende de uno mismo y cada día se pone el granito de arena.

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

intro

Full disclosure : I bought multiple bitcoin art items to support artists

Bitcoin has absorbed old tropes from finance, tech, and economics, fundamentally reshaping how we think about money. But Bitcoin art? It should be a companion on the journey to a Bitcoin standard. Yet it doesn’t even seem to be trying. Every artistic movement worth its salt needs something to push against—to rebel, to spark thought, to provoke, or at the very least, to represent a technical or methodological leap forward in its field.

Pointillism comes to mind as an example in painting.

In this piece, I take a brief stroll into the subjective realm of art, specifically exploring art in the Bitcoin space—if such a thing truly exists. Some people might not like it, but as someone who has created modern art myself, I can confidently say that artists will emerge stronger from this transitional phase of Bitcoin art, whatever this era may be called later.

The art corner You know the drill. You visit any Bitcoin conference and there’s the obligatory “art corner” or gallery. Funny, wasn’t it just a few years back that a single decent artwork was a rarity needing a proper place for being shown tot he public? Now, every conference (small or big) needs this curated space, crammed with artists all vying for a sliver of attention.

And what do you usually find? A collection of the utterly predictable, the profoundly uninspired, the tiresomely repetitive, and anything but artistically groundbreaking amidst some exceptional pieces that will be snatched up almost immediately.

The themes are often so worn out, they’re practically a self-parody version of bitcoin art:

Animals holding signs (with of course… bitcoin logos)

Whales, dolphins, and the aquatic crew: The go-to, utterly drained metaphor for Bitcoin wealth, rendered in every conceivable medium with sea creatures.

Majestic vistas with bitcoin slogans: Think inspirational landscapes defaced with inscriptions or cryptic (not really) messages.

Women cradling blocks: Because apparently, nothing screams "Bitcoin" like a woman clutching a perfectly geometric cube. Bonus points if there are more painted women on a canvas, than actual women at the event.

Coins, coins, and more coins: Gold, silver, pixelated, abstract – just in case anyone forgot Bitcoin isn't a physical trinket.

Collages of Bitcoin celebs and memes: Why bother with originality when you can just mash up some social posts?

Reheated classics with an orange filter: Slap some orange highlights and a Bitcoin logo on a famous painting, and voilà! “Bitcoin art.” Bitcoin Pop-art, Bitcoin punk, Bitcoin collages…

It’s like the whole Bitcoin art scene is endlessly regurgitating the same tired ideas, and pouring a lot of time and effort in being just a fancy washing machine of orange t-shirts.

Most of it—not all, mind you, as there are people with exceptional thought and even more exceptional work—is no more than Bitcoin-themed art. By "theme," I mean the color orange or a “B,” much like you’d see M&M’s-themed coffee mugs, M&M’s t-shirts, or M&M’s-themed playing cards.

Now, let’s be clear: this isn’t about slagging off the artists themselves. I know how hard it is to thrive in this space, and I also learned about the time and effort put in to any work (the perception of the artwork has nothing to do with this at all!)

The dedication and passion within the bitcoin art scene are undeniable. Making art in a niche like Bitcoin is a tough gig (and often a thankless one, given the whole value-4-value thing seems perpetually broken). They deserve respect for putting themselves out there, doing the work and trying to make their passion work.

Many genuinely believe in what they’re creating, even if not everyone is convinced or will like a work of art. However, a lot of them are chasing a mirage, much like those hoping for an oasis of Bitcoin jobs in the desert. Many artists dream of turning their art into a business or a career move, and some even try to make a full-time living from it. That’s admirable, but I’m convinced it’s often a ruse, where your money, time, and effort dress up someone else’s business ideas and sense of branding. In my opinion, the real art movement in Bitcoin has yet to take off. It will need people with great ideas, motivation, know-how, and effort, for sure!

So I repeat the issue isn’t the individuals, the artists; it’s the collective creative stagnation that comes from clamoring to the general interest of this perceived “bitcoiner” as an audience.

Target < B > Audience

Only, this audience is usually not the target audience for the artworks itself. Art needs to have room to inspire, be free and relay an idea (even if that idea challenges another idea). That can’t be done to a target audience that just wants to sell their stuff to each other at a conference (see my piece on Bitcoin conferences for that) neither can it be a target audience that even is too cheap to buy a ticket and freeloads themselves into an conference.

Bitcoin is supposed to be revolutionary, yet so much of its art (or perceived art) feels like a tacked-on commercial necessity or, worse, a desperate attempt at self-validation. Most of it is just a perpetual branding motion from a non-existing marketing team.

The target audience is usually even worse. Not knowing what they’re looking at, out of their element and knowing they should and could support the artists and their work. A lot is depending on why this audience is wandering through a conference gallery in the first place.

If most people at a conference are the usuals, the sellers, the company people, then they're used to seeing these artists and their art pieces. No one is amazed anymore. Which is in fact a sad thing to happen.

I can't imagine how incredibly hard it must be to try to sell something as bitcoin art to this kind of audience, while trying to believe that a B-logo on an excerpt of the whitepaper is worth the effort. (I don’t think it is, but tastes differ, some people prefer a Whopper over a nice steak dinner)

Signaling “membership” in the bitcoin community is important to some, and they do that through hats, t-shirts, pins and hoodies, not buying a bitcoin artwork.

Art is inherently subjective, fluid, and deeply personal.

I love Kusama’s polka dots, someone else might be into Herman Brood’s chaotic paintings, and someone else might get all nostalgic over an Anton Pieck candy store drawings.

The contradiction Bitcoin: The hardest money ever created. Objectively verifiable. Math-based. Impersonal. Code.

The clash is between feeling and finance, between cold emotionless, hard numbers and warm, beating hearts.

That’s why it's always a bit surreal to see people that sit in a conference room, go from a deep dive into Lightning Network scalability or Bitcoin’s code ossification; and see them wandering through an “art gallery” filled with pieces that are the polar opposite of anything remotely code-related. The cold hearts walk amongst the works of warmth. The trustless math calculates their steps and starts to look at something that’s exposed to a public of that’s not there for the art, but the mimicking of such a think in their setting makes them have their own élan, grandeur. It feels forced. And to me, it feels even wrong to see people walk out of a conference room, right into the art gallery… where they’re usually stroll around out of boredom or just as a form of a break. It’s almost disrespectful, and I feel art needs its own place, the right setting. And that setting is definitely not a bitcoin conference.

You see tech and finance folks just standing there, at these art corners looking at the art pieces like cows watching a drone show.

You feel this subtle pressure to act like it’s profound, even though it rarely is. But you’re there, so you play along with the charade as well. It’s miserable to see. Certainly when some people are more interested in buying the piece of mind of the artist, the way of life or a glimmer of independence they’re missing themselves.

I believe bitcoin art is rarely bought for anything else than capturing the reality and authenticity of the artists. Artists know that. And they sell that authenticity (out) to eat, drink, sleep and pay their rent. Authenticity can be double spent, unlike the hard money asset where it’s supposedly all about. Artists have very big blocks.

It’s a bit like that hyped-up restaurant that turns out to be serving dressed-up bar food, but you’re with friends, so you pretend that $35 hors d'oeuvre doesn’t taste suspiciously like steamed shoe laces. Theaters are sometimes food bars or galleries. Proof of fart Then there’s the awkward issue of selling this stuff. How do you, as an artist, “comment on” or “complete” an asset in an artistic way, while that asset appreciates by an average of 40 to 70% a year?

Buying traditional art as an investment is one thing, driven by aesthetics or emotional connection. But buying Bitcoin art with Bitcoin? That’s a financial decision triggering regret (almost for sure). Think about it: 0.1 BTC spent on a canvas today, isn’t just a fixed one-time cost; it’s a future opportunity cost.

That same Bitcoin could be worth significantly more in a few years. The artwork, not so much, not even a Picasso painting or a Hokusai manages that kind of annual return. So, unless you’re head-over-heels for the piece (or the artist), buying Bitcoin art with Bitcoin is almost certainly a bad trade financially – though, so is buying that fancy coffee machine you'll use twice or getting a diamond ring for you loved one.

Of course, this isn't a definitive argument against it (it's subjective, remember). But it's a factor, just one element. People who buy art to lock it away into a vault aren't the same folks milling around a Bitcoin conference, presumably. But still.

Purpose

Historically, in the West at least, art served many purposes: glorifying churches, telling stories to the illiterate, and expressing the full spectrum of human emotion (pain, regret, doubt, madness, etc.). There was always a demand, whether from religious institutions, the populace, or a desire for education and status. The demand rarely came from onlookers or passive walk-ins. You can only walk in after the demand has been met. The real commanding force in Bitcoin art isn’t the financial types in suits or the grifter with a few stickers who got into the conference for free and smells like weed. The demand comes from people who love to cultivate the branding to propel themselves forward.

In Bitcoin? None of that. There’s little genuine demand, I’d argue. The demand seems mostly driven by the artists themselves wanting to participate. Which, in itself, makes the act of creation worthwhile for them. But the audience demand feels… manufactured. Nobody wakes up thinking: “.. I sure hope there’s a Bitcoin art gallery at this conference...”

This low-to-nonexistent demand, however, presents a massive opportunity to actually impress. Low expectations mean impact is easier to achieve in a lasting way. But that impact evaporates fast if all the visitors get is the same old themes with some orange varnish or a monkey holding a sign.

"Proof of work" isn’t enough here; we already have that in the bitcoin network. Bitcoin art need "proof of thought". Sure, Bitcoin artists put in the hours. Their work is literally proof of effort. But effort alone doesn’t equal value – originality does. Copying Warhol, Mondrian, or Van Gogh and slapping a Bitcoin twist on it isn’t the high level of creativity that can pull art lovers in (and even make them bitcoiners); on the contrary it’s opportunism. And in a space that seems to thrive on recycling successful (or at least visible or temporary cool) ideas, genuine artistic innovation is a rare beast.

Bitcoin art could be so much more. And yes that’s subjective, but at the same time, … walk around at any art gallery and be honest with yourself as a person and buy what you really like, support the artists and the scene, and at the same time realize you’re playing dress up.

There should be so much more, as a separate art movement. It could delve into the philosophy of decentralization, the tension between digital scarcity and creativity, the profound societal shifts Bitcoin is triggering. Instead, we’re mostly drowning in kitsch and thinly veiled cash grabs. The Bitcoin art world doesn’t need more bodies; it needs better minds. We don’t need bigger blocks, we don’t need blocks at all!

The uncomfortable truth is that many Bitcoin artists are here chasing opportunities, just like the rest of us. But spotting an opportunity doesn’t magically transform you into an artist.

I could “find the opportunity” to be a star in the hypothetical Bitcoin basketball league, being one of the first to join. But compared to the global pool of professional basketball talent, I’d likely be laughably bad. I’m not even tall enough to reach most pro players’ armpits, let alone dunk. Yet, in òur tiny Bitcoin league WBBF (World Bitcoin Basketball Federation), I’d be a legend, an OG, demanding respect for my early participation and best-dunk-champion. Just like some Bitcoin artists seem to expect accolades for a weak, orange-tinted imitation of 1960s pop art.

I wouldn’t cut it in any real basketball club, probably not even the lowest amateur league, considering my limited knowledge of the rules. Do you have to run back to the center? Can you tackle other players? Is snatching the ball mid-dribble legal? No clue.

But I could hang around the basketball scene a bit, soak up the jargon, maybe buy a sports drink for a better player to glean some knowledge, and then clumsily mimic their moves while still being terrible at dribbling. I’de buy the right shoes as well. To fit in. Just like bitcoiners buy the right t-shirts.

The same principle applies to some Bitcoin musicians and other creatives. Being the only one doing something – be it Bitcoin-themed sculptures, paintings, sci-fi, or whale graffiti murals – doesn’t automatically make you a leading figure. It just makes you… the only one. Being the sole sci-fi filmmaker in Bangladesh makes you the top of your national field, sure, but it doesn’t make you the next Kubrick. Likewise, airbrushing an orange “B” on a canvas doesn’t turn you into the next Georgia O’Keeffe.

The Bitcoin world thrives on competition and proof of work. Perhaps it’s high time Bitcoin art did the same. We need a battle of ideas, experiments, and genuine insights, not just more orange paint, paragraphs of the white paper and some copper wires.

The genuinely sad part is the sheer effort many of the artists pour into their work! But there’s a limit to how much you can make people want to buy an art piece simply because it has a Bitcoin theme. Go beyond that.

Get real

Real Bitcoin art, in whatever form it takes, will command a high valuation because it will be scarce, original, and have Bitcoin not just as a subject, but woven into its very fabric. That form (and there will be many), in my opinion, is still waiting to be discovered. And I’m fairly certain it won’t be found in a conference gallery, where bored artists sit next to their work, politely nodding at every bloke who wants to sound knowledgeable about art for five minutes or tries to make himself look like a big shot. Because let’s face it, I’ve yet to meet a Bitcoiner with a genuine understanding of art history or a truly discerning eye.

Some starting points, perhaps (just my two cents) :

Art that embodies decentralization itself, inviting audience participation and co-creation, mirroring Bitcoin’s ethos but yet to be fully realized in the art world. Including consensus.

Art that incorporates distributed consensus or a rotating "proof of work" concept in its creation or presentation.

Purely mathematical art forms that resonate with Bitcoin’s underlying principles.

The possibilities are vast. Or maybe, just maybe, Bitcoin itself is our art, and we don’t need all this orange-tinged stuff cluttering up galleries nobody asked for.

And why not paint blocks holding women, instead of women holding blocks? Or why not have inflation-resistant art? Or math-based art that isn’t even possible to show on a canvas?

On that subject, the author of this piece enjoys making art as well and conducted a small experiment. I've performed a "life performance" approximately three times now, which I consider pure Bitcoin art. This was an action, not a physical object. It demonstrated work I personally delivered as “a miner” (function in this art piece), and during the process, people could verify it and even received my block subsidy (effort). So far, only one person has recognized this art form; the rest were unaware. Since it's an action, not an object, it's intangible unless you witnessed it. This is my way of saying, "you are the artist." According to the bitcoin ethos.

Interestingly enough, other people, even those involved in Bitcoin art themselves (!), didn't see it. This amused me because, much like the early weeks of Bitcoin's network growth, many initially failed to recognize its potential. Perhaps this parallel should be enough for us all to understand the true nature of Bitcoin art.

The Artistic Dare:

Here’s a challenge, not to your wallet, but to your creative soul: conceive and execute a piece of art that embodies the spirit and principles of Bitcoin in a way that is genuinely original, thought-provoking, and resonates beyond the immediate Bitcoin echo chamber. Forget the predictable iconography. Dig deeper.

If you can create something truly compelling, something that makes us see Bitcoin – or art – in a new light, then you’ve truly created Bitcoin art. And then comes the extra real challenge: finding someone who can and would pay for it, and at the same time “gets it”.

The main challenge is creating real art—a path, a genre—where a standalone Bitcoin art gallery can thrive outside the conferences and the small echo chamber of the “what do you sell?” crowd.

Don’t sell your dreams and authenticity to bored traders or bitcoin consultants. It’s like serving the finest wine to a bunch of alcoholics in a bar at 4 am.

Playing it safe with themes and artworks that can’t cross into the real art scene (even the underground art scene, let alone the corporate art) will not be as long-lived as bitcoin itself. Trying to spark interest from art lovers in general, will be the killer app, and will make bitcoin art into a movement. And that’s what we all need to make it art,… the pieces can’t exist without the movement. I hope someone will get the right spark, idea and fire going.

But until then we’ll be stuck with people painting a chimpanzee holding a glittering Bitcoin logo and chatting with any dude that wants to feel like someone at a conference.

Good luck.

AVB

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

Key Findings

• Researchers at the University of Cambridge discovered that aspirin can help slow the spread of certain cancers, including breast, bowel, and prostate cancers
• The study was published in the journal Nature

How Aspirin Works Against Cancer

• Aspirin blocks thromboxane A2 (TXA2), a chemical produced by blood platelets
• TXA2 normally weakens T cells, which are crucial for fighting cancer
• By inhibiting TXA2, aspirin "unleashes" T cells to more effectively target and destroy cancer cells

Supporting Evidence

• Previous studies showed regular aspirin use was linked to:
• 31% reduction in cancer-specific mortality in breast cancer patients
• 9% decrease in recurrence/metastasis risk
• 25% reduction in colon cancer risk

Potential Impact

• Aspirin could be particularly effective in early stages of cancer
• It may help prevent metastasis, which causes 90% of cancer fatalities
• As an inexpensive treatment, it could be more accessible globally than antibody-based therapies

Cautions

• Experts warn against self-medicating with aspirin
• Potential risks include internal bleeding and stomach ulcers
• Patients should consult doctors before starting aspirin therapy

Next Steps

• Large-scale clinical trials to determine which cancer types and patients would benefit most
• Development of new drugs that mimic aspirin's benefits without side effects

Citations: Natural News

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «moralische Weltordnung» – eine Art Astrologie. Friedrich Nietzsche

Das Treffen der BRICS-Staaten beim Gipfel im russischen Kasan war sicher nicht irgendein politisches Event. Gastgeber Wladimir Putin habe «Hof gehalten», sagen die Einen, China und Russland hätten ihre Vorstellung einer multipolaren Weltordnung zelebriert, schreiben Andere.

In jedem Fall zeigt die Anwesenheit von über 30 Delegationen aus der ganzen Welt, dass von einer geostrategischen Isolation Russlands wohl keine Rede sein kann. Darüber hinaus haben sowohl die Anreise von UN-Generalsekretär António Guterres als auch die Meldungen und Dementis bezüglich der Beitrittsbemühungen des NATO-Staats Türkei für etwas Aufsehen gesorgt.

Im Spannungsfeld geopolitischer und wirtschaftlicher Umbrüche zeigt die neue Allianz zunehmendes Selbstbewusstsein. In Sachen gemeinsamer Finanzpolitik schmiedet man interessante Pläne. Größere Unabhängigkeit von der US-dominierten Finanzordnung ist dabei ein wichtiges Ziel.

Beim BRICS-Wirtschaftsforum in Moskau, wenige Tage vor dem Gipfel, zählte ein nachhaltiges System für Finanzabrechnungen und Zahlungsdienste zu den vorrangigen Themen. Während dieses Treffens ging der russische Staatsfonds eine Partnerschaft mit dem Rechenzentrumsbetreiber BitRiver ein, um Bitcoin-Mining-Anlagen für die BRICS-Länder zu errichten.

Die Initiative könnte ein Schritt sein, Bitcoin und andere Kryptowährungen als Alternativen zu traditionellen Finanzsystemen zu etablieren. Das Projekt könnte dazu führen, dass die BRICS-Staaten den globalen Handel in Bitcoin abwickeln. Vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussionen über eine «BRICS-Währung» wäre dies eine Alternative zu dem ursprünglich angedachten Korb lokaler Währungen und zu goldgedeckten Währungen sowie eine mögliche Ergänzung zum Zahlungssystem BRICS Pay.

Dient der Bitcoin also der Entdollarisierung? Oder droht er inzwischen, zum Gegenstand geopolitischer Machtspielchen zu werden? Angesichts der globalen Vernetzungen ist es oft schwer zu durchschauen, «was eine Show ist und was im Hintergrund von anderen Strippenziehern insgeheim gesteuert wird». Sicher können Strukturen wie Bitcoin auch so genutzt werden, dass sie den Herrschenden dienlich sind. Aber die Grundeigenschaft des dezentralisierten, unzensierbaren Peer-to-Peer Zahlungsnetzwerks ist ihm schließlich nicht zu nehmen.

Wenn es nach der EZB oder dem IWF geht, dann scheint statt Instrumentalisierung momentan eher der Kampf gegen Kryptowährungen angesagt. Jürgen Schaaf, Senior Manager bei der Europäischen Zentralbank, hat jedenfalls dazu aufgerufen, Bitcoin «zu eliminieren». Der Internationale Währungsfonds forderte El Salvador, das Bitcoin 2021 als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel eingeführt hat, kürzlich zu begrenzenden Maßnahmen gegen das Kryptogeld auf.

Dass die BRICS-Staaten ein freiheitliches Ansinnen im Kopf haben, wenn sie Kryptowährungen ins Spiel bringen, darf indes auch bezweifelt werden. Im Abschlussdokument bekennen sich die Gipfel-Teilnehmer ausdrücklich zur UN, ihren Programmen und ihrer «Agenda 2030». Ernst Wolff nennt das «eine Bankrotterklärung korrupter Politiker, die sich dem digital-finanziellen Komplex zu 100 Prozent unterwerfen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Auf der diesjährigen Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz geht es vor allem um die Ukraine. Protagonisten sind dabei zunächst die US-Amerikaner. Präsident Trump schockierte die Europäer kurz vorher durch ein Telefonat mit seinem Amtskollegen Wladimir Putin, während Vizepräsident Vance mit seiner Rede über Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit für versteinerte Mienen und Empörung sorgte.

Die Bemühungen der Europäer um einen Frieden in der Ukraine halten sich, gelinde gesagt, in Grenzen. Größeres Augenmerk wird auf militärische Unterstützung, die Pflege von Feindbildern sowie Eskalation gelegt. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Scholz reagierte auf die angekündigten Verhandlungen über einen möglichen Frieden für die Ukraine mit der Forderung nach noch höheren «Verteidigungsausgaben». Auch die amtierende Außenministerin Baerbock hatte vor der Münchner Konferenz klargestellt:

«Frieden wird es nur durch Stärke geben. (...) Bei Corona haben wir gesehen, zu was Europa fähig ist. Es braucht erneut Investitionen, die der historischen Wegmarke, vor der wir stehen, angemessen sind.»

Die Rüstungsindustrie freut sich in jedem Fall über weltweit steigende Militärausgaben. Die Kriege in der Ukraine und in Gaza tragen zu Rekordeinnahmen bei. Jetzt «winkt die Aussicht auf eine jahrelange große Nachrüstung in Europa», auch wenn der Ukraine-Krieg enden sollte, so hört man aus Finanzkreisen. In der Konsequenz kennt «die Aktie des deutschen Vorzeige-Rüstungskonzerns Rheinmetall in ihrem Anstieg offenbar gar keine Grenzen mehr». «Solche Friedensversprechen» wie das jetzige hätten in der Vergangenheit zu starken Kursverlusten geführt.

Für manche Leute sind Kriegswaffen und sonstige Rüstungsgüter Waren wie alle anderen, jedenfalls aus der Perspektive von Investoren oder Managern. Auch in diesem Bereich gibt es Startups und man spricht von Dingen wie innovativen Herangehensweisen, hocheffizienten Produktionsanlagen, skalierbaren Produktionstechniken und geringeren Stückkosten.

Wir lesen aktuell von Massenproduktion und gesteigerten Fertigungskapazitäten für Kriegsgerät. Der Motor solcher Dynamik und solchen Wachstums ist die Aufrüstung, die inzwischen permanent gefordert wird. Parallel wird die Bevölkerung verbal eingestimmt und auf Kriegstüchtigkeit getrimmt.

Das Rüstungs- und KI-Startup Helsing verkündete kürzlich eine «dezentrale Massenproduktion für den Ukrainekrieg». Mit dieser Expansion positioniere sich das Münchner Unternehmen als einer der weltweit führenden Hersteller von Kampfdrohnen. Der nächste «Meilenstein» steht auch bereits an: Man will eine Satellitenflotte im Weltraum aufbauen, zur Überwachung von Gefechtsfeldern und Truppenbewegungen.

Ebenfalls aus München stammt das als DefenseTech-Startup bezeichnete Unternehmen ARX Robotics. Kürzlich habe man in der Region die größte europäische Produktionsstätte für autonome Verteidigungssysteme eröffnet. Damit fahre man die Produktion von Militär-Robotern hoch. Diese Expansion diene auch der Lieferung der «größten Flotte unbemannter Bodensysteme westlicher Bauart» in die Ukraine.

Rüstung boomt und scheint ein Zukunftsmarkt zu sein. Die Hersteller und Vermarkter betonen, mit ihren Aktivitäten und Produkten solle die europäische Verteidigungsfähigkeit erhöht werden. Ihre Strategien sollten sogar «zum Schutz demokratischer Strukturen beitragen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Bitcoin has always been rooted in freedom and resistance to authority. I get that many of you are conflicted about the US Government stacking but by design we cannot stop anyone from using bitcoin. Many have asked me for my thoughts on the matter, so let’s rip it.

Concern

One of the most glaring issues with the strategic bitcoin reserve is its foundation, built on stolen bitcoin. For those of us who value private property this is an obvious betrayal of our core principles. Rather than proof of work, the bitcoin that seeds this reserve has been taken by force. The US Government should return the bitcoin stolen from Bitfinex and the Silk Road.

Usually stolen bitcoin for the reserve creates a perverse incentive. If governments see a bitcoin as a valuable asset, they will ramp up efforts to confiscate more bitcoin. The precedent is a major concern, and I stand strongly against it, but it should be also noted that governments were already seizing coin before the reserve so this is not really a change in policy.

Ideally all seized bitcoin should be burned, by law. This would align incentives properly and make it less likely for the government to actively increase coin seizures. Due to the truly scarce properties of bitcoin, all burned bitcoin helps existing holders through increased purchasing power regardless. This change would be unlikely but those of us in policy circles should push for it regardless. It would be best case scenario for American bitcoiners and would create a strong foundation for the next century of American leadership.

Optimism

The entire point of bitcoin is that we can spend or save it without permission. That said, it is a massive benefit to not have one of the strongest governments in human history actively trying to ruin our lives.

Since the beginning, bitcoiners have faced horrible regulatory trends. KYC, surveillance, and legal cases have made using bitcoin and building bitcoin businesses incredibly difficult. It is incredibly important to note that over the past year that trend has reversed for the first time in a decade. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a key driver of this shift. By holding bitcoin, the strongest government in the world has signaled that it is not just a fringe technology but rather truly valuable, legitimate, and worth stacking.

This alignment of incentives changes everything. The US Government stacking proves bitcoin’s worth. The resulting purchasing power appreciation helps all of us who are holding coin and as bitcoin succeeds our government receives direct benefit. A beautiful positive feedback loop.

Realism

We are trending in the right direction. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a sign that the state sees bitcoin as an asset worth embracing rather than destroying. That said, there is a lot of work left to be done. We cannot be lulled into complacency, the time to push forward is now, and we cannot take our foot off the gas. We have a seat at the table for the first time ever. Let's make it worth it.

We must protect the right to free usage of bitcoin and other digital technologies. Freedom in the digital age must be taken and defended, through both technical and political avenues. Multiple privacy focused developers are facing long jail sentences for building tools that protect our freedom. These cases are not just legal battles. They are attacks on the soul of bitcoin. We need to rally behind them, fight for their freedom, and ensure the ethos of bitcoin survives this new era of government interest. The strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is up to us to hold the line and shape the future.

@ 826e9f89:ffc5c759

What follows began as snippets of conversations I have been having for years, on and off, here and there. It will likely eventually be collated into a piece I have been meaning to write on “payments” as a whole. I foolishly started writing this piece years ago, not realizing that the topic is gargantuan and for every week I spend writing it I have to add two weeks to my plan. That may or may not ever come to fruition, but in the meantime, Tether announced it was issuing on Taproot Assets and suddenly everybody is interested again. This is as good a catalyst as any to carve out my “stablecoin thesis”, such as it exists, from “payments”, and put it out there for comment and feedback.

In contrast to the “Bitcoiner take” I will shortly revert to, I invite the reader to keep the following potential counterargument in mind, which might variously be termed the “shitcoiner”, “realist”, or “cynical” take, depending on your perspective: that stablecoins have clear product-market-fit. Now, as a venture capitalist and professional thinkboi focusing on companies building on Bitcoin, I obviously think that not only is Bitcoin the best money ever invented and its monetization is pretty much inevitable, but that, furthermore, there is enormous, era-defining long-term potential for a range of industries in which Bitcoin is emerging as superior technology, even aside from its role as money. But in the interest not just of steelmanning but frankly just of honesty, I would grudgingly agree with the following assessment as of the time of writing: the applications of crypto (inclusive of Bitcoin but deliberately wider) that have found product-market-fit today, and that are not speculative bets on future development and adoption, are: Bitcoin as savings technology, mining as a means of monetizing energy production, and stablecoins.

I think there are two typical Bitcoiner objections to stablecoins of significantly greater importance than all others: that you shouldn’t be supporting dollar hegemony, and that you don’t need a blockchain. I will elaborate on each of these, and for the remainder of the post will aim to produce a synthesis of three superficially contrasting (or at least not obviously related) sources of inspiration: these objections, the realisation above that stablecoins just are useful, and some commentary on technical developments in Bitcoin and the broader space that I think inform where things are likely to go. As will become clear as the argument progresses, I actually think the outcome to which I am building up is where things have to go. I think the technical and economic incentives at play make this an inevitability rather than a “choice”, per se. Given my conclusion, which I will hold back for the time being, this is a fantastically good thing, hence I am motivated to write this post at all!

Objection 1: Dollar Hegemony

I list this objection first because there isn’t a huge amount to say about it. It is clearly a normative position, and while I more or less support it personally, I don’t think that it is material to the argument I am going on to make, so I don’t want to force it on the reader. While the case for this objection is probably obvious to this audience (isn’t the point of Bitcoin to destroy central banks, not further empower them?) I should at least offer the steelman that there is a link between this and the realist observation that stablecoins are useful. The reason they are useful is because people prefer the dollar to even shitter local fiat currencies. I don’t think it is particularly fruitful to say that they shouldn’t. They do. Facts don’t care about your feelings. There is a softer bridging argument to be made here too, to the effect that stablecoins warm up their users to the concept of digital bearer (ish) assets, even though these particular assets are significantly scammier than Bitcoin. Again, I am just floating this, not telling the reader they should or shouldn’t buy into it.

All that said, there is one argument I do want to put my own weight behind, rather than just float: stablecoin issuance is a speculative attack on the institution of fractional reserve banking. A “dollar” Alice moves from JPMorgan to Tether embodies two trade-offs from Alice’s perspective: i) a somewhat opaque profile on the credit risk of the asset: the likelihood of JPMorgan ever really defaulting on deposits vs the operator risk of Tether losing full backing and/or being wrench attacked by the Federal Government and rugging its users. These risks are real but are almost entirely political. I’m skeptical it is meaningful to quantify them, but even if it is, I am not the person to try to do it. Also, more transparently to Alice, ii) far superior payment rails (for now, more on this to follow).

However, from the perspective of the fiat banking cartel, fractional reserve leverage has been squeezed. There are just as many notional dollars in circulation, but there the backing has been shifted from levered to unlevered issuers. There are gradations of relevant objections to this: while one might say, Tether’s backing comes from Treasuries, so you are directly funding US debt issuance!, this is a bit silly in the context of what other dollars one might hold. It’s not like JPMorgan is really competing with the Treasury to sell credit into the open market. Optically they are, but this is the core of the fiat scam. Via the guarantees of the Federal Reserve System, JPMorgan can sell as much unbacked credit as it wants knowing full well the difference will be printed whenever this blows up. Short-term Treasuries are also JPMorgan’s most pristine asset safeguarding its equity, so the only real difference is that Tether only holds Treasuries without wishing more leverage into existence. The realization this all builds up to is that, by necessity,

Tether is a fully reserved bank issuing fiduciary media against the only dollar-denominated asset in existence whose value (in dollar terms) can be guaranteed. Furthermore, this media arguably has superior “moneyness” to the obvious competition in the form of US commercial bank deposits by virtue of its payment rails.

That sounds pretty great when you put it that way! Of course, the second sentence immediately leads to the second objection, and lets the argument start to pick up steam …

Objection 2: You Don’t Need a Blockchain

I don’t need to explain this to this audience but to recap as briefly as I can manage: Bitcoin’s value is entirely endogenous. Every aspect of “a blockchain” that, out of context, would be an insanely inefficient or redundant modification of a “database”, in context is geared towards the sole end of enabling the stability of this endogenous value. Historically, there have been two variations of stupidity that follow a failure to grok this: i) “utility tokens”, or blockchains with native tokens for something other than money. I would recommend anybody wanting a deeper dive on the inherent nonsense of a utility token to read Only The Strong Survive, in particular Chapter 2, Crypto Is Not Decentralized, and the subsection, Everything Fights For Liquidity, and/or Green Eggs And Ham, in particular Part II, Decentralized Finance, Technically. ii) “real world assets” or, creating tokens within a blockchain’s data structure that are not intended to have endogenous value but to act as digital quasi-bearer certificates to some or other asset of value exogenous to this system. Stablecoins are in this second category.

RWA tokens definitionally have to have issuers, meaning some entity that, in the real world, custodies or physically manages both the asset and the record-keeping scheme for the asset. “The blockchain” is at best a secondary ledger to outsource ledger updates to public infrastructure such that the issuer itself doesn’t need to bother and can just “check the ledger” whenever operationally relevant. But clearly ownership cannot be enforced in an analogous way to Bitcoin, under both technical and social considerations. Technically, Bitcoin’s endogenous value means that whoever holds the keys to some or other UTXOs functionally is the owner. Somebody else claiming to be the owner is yelling at clouds. Whereas, socially, RWA issuers enter a contract with holders (whether legally or just in terms of a common-sense interpretation of the transaction) such that ownership of the asset issued against is entirely open to dispute. That somebody can point to “ownership” of the token may or may not mean anything substantive with respect to the physical reality of control of the asset, and how the issuer feels about it all.

And so, one wonders, why use a blockchain at all? Why doesn’t the issuer just run its own database (for the sake of argument with some or other signature scheme for verifying and auditing transactions) given it has the final say over issuance and redemption anyway? I hinted at an answer above: issuing on a blockchain outsources this task to public infrastructure. This is where things get interesting. While it is technically true, given the above few paragraphs, that, you don’t need a blockchain for that, you also don’t need to not use a blockchain for that. If you want to, you can.

This is clearly the case given stablecoins exist at all and have gone this route. If one gets too angry about not needing a blockchain for that, one equally risks yelling at clouds! And, in fact, one can make an even stronger argument, more so from the end users’ perspective. These products do not exist in a vacuum but rather compete with alternatives. In the case of stablecoins, the alternative is traditional fiat money, which, as stupid as RWAs on a blockchain are, is even dumber. It actually is just a database, except it’s a database that is extremely annoying to use, basically for political reasons because the industry managing these private databases form a cartel that never needs to innovate or really give a shit about its customers at all. In many, many cases, stablecoins on blockchains are dumb in the abstract, but superior to the alternative methods of holding and transacting in dollars existing in other forms. And note, this is only from Alice’s perspective of wanting to send and receive, not a rehashing of the fractional reserve argument given above. This is the essence of their product-market-fit. Yell at clouds all you like: they just are useful given the alternative usually is not Bitcoin, it’s JPMorgan’s KYC’d-up-the-wazoo 90s-era website, more than likely from an even less solvent bank.

So where does this get us? It might seem like we are back to “product-market-fit, sorry about that” with Bitcoiners yelling about feelings while everybody else makes do with their facts. However, I think we have introduced enough material to move the argument forward by incrementally incorporating the following observations, all of which I will shortly go into in more detail: i) as a consequence of making no technical sense with respect to what blockchains are for, today’s approach won’t scale; ii) as a consequence of short-termist tradeoffs around socializing costs, today’s approach creates an extremely unhealthy and arguably unnatural market dynamic in the issuer space; iii) Taproot Assets now exist and handily address both points i) and ii), and; iv) eCash is making strides that I believe will eventually replace even Taproot Assets.

To tease where all this is going, and to get the reader excited before we dive into much more detail: just as Bitcoin will eat all monetary premia, Lightning will likely eat all settlement, meaning all payments will gravitate towards routing over Lightning regardless of the denomination of the currency at the edges. Fiat payments will gravitate to stablecoins to take advantage of this; stablecoins will gravitate to TA and then to eCash, and all of this will accelerate hyperbitcoinization by “bitcoinizing” payment rails such that an eventual full transition becomes as simple as flicking a switch as to what denomination you want to receive.

I will make two important caveats before diving in that are more easily understood in light of having laid this groundwork: I am open to the idea that it won’t be just Lightning or just Taproot Assets playing the above roles. Without veering into forecasting the entire future development of Bitcoin tech, I will highlight that all that really matters here are, respectively: a true layer 2 with native hashlocks, and a token issuance scheme that enables atomic routing over such a layer 2 (or combination of such). For the sake of argument, the reader is welcome to swap in “Ark” and “RGB” for “Lightning” and “TA” both above and in all that follows. As far as I can tell, this makes no difference to the argument and is even exciting in its own right. However, for the sake of simplicity in presentation, I will stick to “Lightning” and “TA” hereafter.

1) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Won’t Scale

This is the easiest to tick off and again doesn’t require much explanation to this audience. Blockchains fundamentally don’t scale, which is why Bitcoin’s UTXO scheme is a far better design than ex-Bitcoin Crypto’s’ account-based models, even entirely out of context of all the above criticisms. This is because Bitcoin transactions can be batched across time and across users with combinations of modes of spending restrictions that provide strong economic guarantees of correct eventual net settlement, if not perpetual deferral. One could argue this is a decent (if abstrusely technical) definition of “scaling” that is almost entirely lacking in Crypto.

What we see in ex-Bitcoin crypto is so-called “layer 2s” that are nothing of the sort, forcing stablecoin schemes in these environments into one of two equally poor design choices if usage is ever to increase: fees go higher and higher, to the point of economic unviability (and well past it) as blocks fill up, or move to much more centralized environments that increasingly are just databases, and hence which lose the benefits of openness thought to be gleaned by outsourcing settlement to public infrastructure. This could be in the form of punting issuance to a bullshit “layer 2” that is a really a multisig “backing” a private execution environment (to be decentralized any daw now) or an entirely different blockchain that is just pretending even less not to be a database to begin with. In a nutshell, this is a decent bottom-up explanation as to why Tron has the highest settlement of Tether.

This also gives rise to the weirdness of “gas tokens” - assets whose utility as money is and only is in the form of a transaction fee to transact a different kind of money. These are not quite as stupid as a “utility token,” given at least they are clearly fulfilling a monetary role and hence their artificial scarcity can be justified. But they are frustrating from Bitcoiners’ and users’ perspectives alike: users would prefer to pay transaction fees on dollars in dollars, but they can’t because the value of Ether, Sol, Tron, or whatever, is the string and bubblegum that hold their boondoggles together. And Bitcoiners wish this stuff would just go away and stop distracting people, whereas this string and bubblegum is proving transiently useful.

All in all, today’s approach is fine so long as it isn’t being used much. It has product-market fit, sure, but in the unenviable circumstance that, if it really starts to take off, it will break, and even the original users will find it unusable.

2) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Creates an Untenable Market Dynamic

Reviving the ethos of you don’t need a blockchain for that, notice the following subtlety: while the tokens representing stablecoins have value to users, that value is not native to the blockchain on which they are issued. Tether can (and routinely does) burn tokens on Ethereum and mint them on Tron, then burn on Tron and mint on Solana, and so on. So-called blockchains “go down” and nobody really cares. This makes no difference whatsoever to Tether’s own accounting, and arguably a positive difference to users given these actions track market demand. But it is detrimental to the blockchain being switched away from by stripping it of “TVL” that, it turns out, was only using it as rails: entirely exogenous value that leaves as quickly as it arrived.

One underdiscussed and underappreciated implication of the fact that no value is natively running through the blockchain itself is that, in the current scheme, both the sender and receiver of a stablecoin have to trust the same issuer. This creates an extremely powerful network effect that, in theory, makes the first-to-market likely to dominate and in practice has played out exactly as this theory would suggest: Tether has roughly 80% of the issuance, while roughly 19% goes to the political carve-out of USDC that wouldn’t exist at all were it not for government interference. Everybody else combined makes up the final 1%.

So, Tether is a full reserve bank but also has to be everybody’s bank. This is the source of a lot of the discomfort with Tether, and which feeds into the original objection around dollar hegemony, that there is an ill-defined but nonetheless uneasy feeling that Tether is slowly morphing into a CBDC. I would argue this really has nothing to do with Tether’s own behavior but rather is a consequence of the market dynamic inevitably created by the current stablecoin scheme. There is no reason to trust any other bank because nobody really wants a bank, they just want the rails. They want something that will retain a nominal dollar value long enough to spend it again. They don’t care what tech it runs on and they don’t even really care about the issuer except insofar as having some sense they won’t get rugged.

Notice this is not how fiat works. Banks can, of course, settle between each other, thus enabling their users to send money to customers of other banks. This settlement function is actually the entire point of central banks, less the money printing and general corruption enabled (we might say, this was the historical point of central banks, which have since become irredeemably corrupted by this power). This process is clunkier than stablecoins, as covered above, but the very possibility of settlement means there is no gigantic network effect to being the first commercial issuer of dollar balances. If it isn’t too triggering to this audience, one might suggest that the money printer also removes the residual concern that your balances might get rugged! (or, we might again say, you guarantee you don’t get rugged in the short term by guaranteeing you do get rugged in the long term).

This is a good point at which to introduce the unsettling observation that broader fintech is catching on to the benefits of stablecoins without any awareness whatsoever of all the limitations I am outlining here. With the likes of Stripe, Wise, Robinhood, and, post-Trump, even many US megabanks supposedly contemplating issuing stablecoins (obviously within the current scheme, not the scheme I am building up to proposing), we are forced to boggle our minds considering how on earth settlement is going to work. Are they going to settle through Ether? Well, no, because i) Ether isn’t money, it’s … to be honest, I don’t think anybody really knows what it is supposed to be, or if they once did they aren’t pretending anymore, but anyway, Stripe certainly hasn’t figured that out yet so, ii) it won’t be possible to issue them on layer 1s as soon as there is any meaningful volume, meaning they will have to route through “bullshit layer 2 wrapped Ether token that is really already a kind of stablecoin for Ether.”

The way they are going to try to fix this (anybody wanna bet?) is routing through DEXes, which is so painfully dumb you should be laughing and, if you aren’t, I would humbly suggest you don’t get just how dumb it is. What this amounts to is plugging the gap of Ether’s lack of moneyness (and wrapped Ether’s hilarious lack of moneyness) with … drum roll … unknowable technical and counterparty risk and unpredictable cost on top of reverting to just being a database. So, in other words, all of the costs of using a blockchain when you don’t strictly need to, and none of the benefits. Stripe is going to waste billions of dollars getting sandwich attacked out of some utterly vanilla FX settlement it is facilitating for clients who have even less of an idea what is going on and why North Korea now has all their money, and will eventually realize they should have skipped their shitcoin phase and gone straight to understanding Bitcoin instead …

3) Bitcoin (and Taproot Assets) Fixes This

To tie together a few loose ends, I only threw in the hilariously stupid suggestion of settling through wrapped Ether on Ether on Ether in order to tee up the entirely sensible suggestion of settling through Lightning. Again, not that this will be new to this audience, but while issuance schemes have been around on Bitcoin for a long time, the breakthrough of Taproot Assets is essentially the ability to atomically route through Lightning.

I will admit upfront that this presents a massive bootstrapping challenge relative to the ex-Bitcoin Crypto approach, and it’s not obvious to me if or how this will be overcome. I include this caveat to make it clear I am not suggesting this is a given. It may not be, it’s just beyond the scope of this post (or frankly my ability) to predict. This is a problem for Lightning Labs, Tether, and whoever else decides to step up to issue. But even highlighting this as an obvious and major concern invites us to consider an intriguing contrast: scaling TA stablecoins is hardest at the start and gets easier and easier thereafter. The more edge liquidity there is in TA stables, the less of a risk it is for incremental issuance; the more TA activity, the more attractive deploying liquidity is into Lightning proper, and vice versa. With apologies if this metaphor is even more confusing than it is helpful, one might conceive of the situation as being that there is massive inertia to bootstrap, but equally there could be positive feedback in driving the inertia to scale. Again, I have no idea, and it hasn’t happened yet in practice, but in theory it’s fun.

More importantly to this conversation, however, this is almost exactly the opposite dynamic to the current scheme on other blockchains, which is basically free to start, but gets more and more expensive the more people try to use it. One might say it antiscales (I don’t think that’s a real word, but if Taleb can do it, then I can do it too!).

Furthermore, the entire concept of “settling in Bitcoin” makes perfect sense both economically and technically: economically because Bitcoin is money, and technically because it can be locked in an HTLC and hence can enable atomic routing (i.e. because Lightning is a thing). This is clearly better than wrapped Eth on Eth on Eth or whatever, but, tantalisingly, is better than fiat too! The core message of the payments tome I may or may not one day write is (or will be) that fiat payments, while superficially efficient on the basis of centralized and hence costless ledger amendments, actually have a hidden cost in the form of interbank credit. Many readers will likely have heard me say this multiple times and in multiple settings but, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a fiat debit. Even if styled as a debit, all fiat payments are credits and all have credit risk baked into their cost, even if that is obscured and pushed to the absolute foundational level of money printing to keep banks solvent and hence keep payment channels open.

Furthermore! this enables us to strip away the untenable market dynamic from the point above. The underappreciated and underdiscussed flip side of the drawback of the current dynamic that is effectively fixed by Taproot Assets is that there is no longer a mammoth network effect to a single issuer. Senders and receivers can trust different issuers (i.e. their own banks) because those banks can atomically settle a single payment over Lightning. This does not involve credit. It is arguably the only true debit in the world across both the relevant economic and technical criteria: it routes through money with no innate credit risk, and it does so atomically due to that money’s native properties.

Savvy readers may have picked up on a seed I planted a while back and which can now delightfully blossom:

This is what Visa was supposed to be!

Crucially, this is not what Visa is now. Visa today is pretty much the bank that is everybody’s counterparty, takes a small credit risk for the privilege, and oozes free cash flow bottlenecking global consumer payments.

But if you read both One From Many by Dee Hock (for a first person but pretty wild and extravagant take) and Electronic Value Exchange by David Stearns (for a third person, drier, but more analytical and historically contextualized take) or if you are just intimately familiar with the modern history of payments for whatever other reason, you will see that the role I just described for Lightning in an environment of unboundedly many banks issuing fiduciary media in the form of stablecoins is exactly what Dee Hock wanted to create when he envisioned Visa:

A neutral and open layer of value settlement enabling banks to create digital, interbank payment schemes for their customers at very low cost.

As it turns out, his vision was technically impossible with fiat, hence Visa, which started as a cooperative amongst member banks, was corrupted into a duopolistic for-profit rent seeker in curious parallel to the historical path of central banks …

4) eCash

To now push the argument to what I think is its inevitable conclusion, it’s worth being even more vigilant on the front of you don’t need a blockchain for that. I have argued that there is a role for a blockchain in providing a neutral settlement layer to enable true debits of stablecoins. But note this is just a fancy and/or stupid way of saying that Bitcoin is both the best money and is programmable, which we all knew anyway. The final step is realizing that, while TA is nice in terms of providing a kind of “on ramp” for global payments infrastructure as a whole to reorient around Lightning, there is some path dependence here in assuming (almost certainly correctly) that the familiarity of stablecoins as “RWA tokens on a blockchain” will be an important part of the lure.

But once that transition is complete, or is well on its way to being irreversible, we may as well come full circle and cut out tokens altogether. Again, you really don’t need a blockchain for that, and the residual appeal of better rails has been taken care of with the above massive detour through what I deem to be the inevitability of Lightning as a settlement layer. Just as USDT on Tron arguably has better moneyness than a JPMorgan balance, so a “stablecoin” as eCash has better moneyness than as a TA given it is cheaper, more private, and has more relevantly bearer properties (in other words, because it is cash). The technical detail that it can be hashlocked is really all you need to tie this all together. That means it can be atomically locked into a Lightning routed debit to the recipient of a different issuer (or “mint” in eCash lingo, but note this means the same thing as what we have been calling fully reserved banks). And the economic incentive is pretty compelling too because, for all their benefits, there is still a cost to TAs given they are issued onchain and they require asset-specific liquidity to route on Lightning. Once the rest of the tech is in place, why bother? Keep your Lightning connectivity and just become a mint.

What you get at that point is dramatically superior private database to JPMorgan with the dramatically superior public rails of Lightning. There is nothing left to desire from “a blockchain” besides what Bitcoin is fundamentally for in the first place: counterparty-risk-free value settlement.

And as a final point with a curious and pleasing echo to Dee Hock at Visa, Calle has made the point repeatedly that David Chaum’s vision for eCash, while deeply philosophical besides the technical details, was actually pretty much impossible to operate on fiat. From an eCash perspective, fiat stablecoins within the above infrastructure setup are a dramatic improvement on anything previously possible. But, of course, they are a slippery slope to Bitcoin regardless …

Objections Revisited

As a cherry on top, I think the objections I highlighted at the outset are now readily addressed – to the extent the reader believes what I am suggesting is more or less a technical and economic inevitability, that is. While, sure, I’m not particularly keen on giving the Treasury more avenues to sell its welfare-warfare shitcoin, on balance the likely development I’ve outlined is an enormous net positive: it’s going to sell these anyway so I prefer a strong economic incentive to steadily transition not only to Lightning as payment rails but eCash as fiduciary media, and to use “fintech” as a carrot to induce a slow motion bank run.

As alluded to above, once all this is in place, the final step to a Bitcoin standard becomes as simple as an individual’s decision to want Bitcoin instead of fiat. On reflection, this is arguably the easiest part! It's setting up all the tech that puts people off, so trojan-horsing them with “faster, cheaper payment rails” seems like a genius long-term strategy.

And as to “needing a blockchain” (or not), I hope that is entirely wrapped up at this point. The only blockchain you need is Bitcoin, but to the extent people are still confused by this (which I think will take decades more to fully unwind), we may as well lean into dazzling them with whatever innovation buzzwords and decentralization theatre they were going to fall for anyway before realizing they wanted Bitcoin all along.

Conclusion

Stablecoins are useful whether you like it or not. They are stupid in the abstract but it turns out fiat is even stupider, on inspection. But you don’t need a blockchain, and using one as decentralization theatre creates technical debt that is insurmountable in the long run. Blockchain-based stablecoins are doomed to a utility inversely proportional to their usage, and just to rub it in, their ill-conceived design practically creates a commercial dynamic that mandates there only ever be a single issuer.

Given they are useful, it seems natural that this tension is going to blow up at some point. It also seems worthwhile observing that Taproot Asset stablecoins have almost the inverse problem and opposite commercial dynamic: they will be most expensive to use at the outset but get cheaper and cheaper as their usage grows. Also, there is no incentive towards a monopoly issuer but rather towards as many as are willing to try to operate well and provide value to their users.

As such, we can expect any sizable growth in stablecoins to migrate to TA out of technical and economic necessity. Once this has happened - or possibly while it is happening but is clearly not going to stop - we may as well strip out the TA component and just use eCash because you really don’t need a blockchain for that at all. And once all the money is on eCash, deciding you want to denominate it in Bitcoin is the simplest on-ramp to hyperbitcoinization you can possibly imagine, given we’ve spent the previous decade or two rebuilding all payments tech around Lightning.

Or: Bitcoin fixes this. The End.

• Allen, #892,125

thanks to Marco Argentieri, Lyn Alden, and Calle for comments and feedback

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Nur wenn wir aufeinander zugehen, haben wir die Chance \ auf Überwindung der gegenseitigen Ressentiments! \ Dr. med. dent. Jens Knipphals

In Wolfsburg sollte es kürzlich eine Gesprächsrunde von Kritikern der Corona-Politik mit Oberbürgermeister Dennis Weilmann und Vertretern der Stadtverwaltung geben. Der Zahnarzt und langjährige Maßnahmenkritiker Jens Knipphals hatte diese Einladung ins Rathaus erwirkt und publiziert. Seine Motivation:

«Ich möchte die Spaltung der Gesellschaft überwinden. Dazu ist eine umfassende Aufarbeitung der Corona-Krise in der Öffentlichkeit notwendig.»

Schon früher hatte Knipphals Antworten von den Kommunalpolitikern verlangt, zum Beispiel bei öffentlichen Bürgerfragestunden. Für das erwartete Treffen im Rathaus formulierte er Fragen wie: Warum wurden fachliche Argumente der Kritiker ignoriert? Weshalb wurde deren Ausgrenzung, Diskreditierung und Entmenschlichung nicht entgegengetreten? In welcher Form übernehmen Rat und Verwaltung in Wolfsburg persönlich Verantwortung für die erheblichen Folgen der politischen Corona-Krise?

Der Termin fand allerdings nicht statt – der Bürgermeister sagte ihn kurz vorher wieder ab. Knipphals bezeichnete Weilmann anschließend als Wiederholungstäter, da das Stadtoberhaupt bereits 2022 zu einem Runden Tisch in der Sache eingeladen hatte, den es dann nie gab. Gegenüber Multipolar erklärte der Arzt, Weilmann wolle scheinbar eine öffentliche Aufarbeitung mit allen Mitteln verhindern. Er selbst sei «inzwischen absolut desillusioniert» und die einzige Lösung sei, dass die Verantwortlichen gingen.

Die Aufarbeitung der Plandemie beginne bei jedem von uns selbst, sei aber letztlich eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe, schreibt Peter Frey, der den «Fall Wolfsburg» auch in seinem Blog behandelt. Diese Aufgabe sei indes deutlich größer, als viele glaubten. Erfreulicherweise sei der öffentliche Informationsraum inzwischen größer, trotz der weiterhin unverfrorenen Desinformations-Kampagnen der etablierten Massenmedien.

Frey erinnert daran, dass Dennis Weilmann mitverantwortlich für gravierende Grundrechtseinschränkungen wie die 2021 eingeführten 2G-Regeln in der Wolfsburger Innenstadt zeichnet. Es sei naiv anzunehmen, dass ein Funktionär einzig im Interesse der Bürger handeln würde. Als früherer Dezernent des Amtes für Wirtschaft, Digitalisierung und Kultur der Autostadt kenne Weilmann zum Beispiel die Verknüpfung von Fördergeldern mit politischen Zielsetzungen gut.

Wolfsburg wurde damals zu einem Modellprojekt des Bundesministeriums des Innern (BMI) und war Finalist im Bitkom-Wettbewerb «Digitale Stadt». So habe rechtzeitig vor der Plandemie das Projekt «Smart City Wolfsburg» anlaufen können, das der Stadt «eine Vorreiterrolle für umfassende Vernetzung und Datenerfassung» aufgetragen habe, sagt Frey. Die Vereinten Nationen verkauften dann derartige «intelligente» Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen ebenso als Rettung in der Not wie das Magazin Forbes im April 2020:

«Intelligente Städte können uns helfen, die Coronavirus-Pandemie zu bekämpfen. In einer wachsenden Zahl von Ländern tun die intelligenten Städte genau das. Regierungen und lokale Behörden nutzen Smart-City-Technologien, Sensoren und Daten, um die Kontakte von Menschen aufzuspüren, die mit dem Coronavirus infiziert sind. Gleichzeitig helfen die Smart Cities auch dabei, festzustellen, ob die Regeln der sozialen Distanzierung eingehalten werden.»

Offensichtlich gibt es viele Aspekte zu bedenken und zu durchleuten, wenn es um die Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung der sogenannten «Corona-Pandemie» und der verordneten Maßnahmen geht. Frustration und Desillusion sind angesichts der Realitäten absolut verständlich. Gerade deswegen sind Initiativen wie die von Jens Knipphals so bewundernswert und so wichtig – ebenso wie eine seiner Kernthesen: «Wir müssen aufeinander zugehen, da hilft alles nichts».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ f3873798:24b3f2f3

Recentemente, assisti a um vídeo que me fez refletir profundamente sobre o impacto da linguagem na hora de vender. No vídeo, uma jovem relatava sua experiência ao presenciar um vendedor de amendoim em uma agência dos Correios. O local estava cheio, as pessoas aguardavam impacientes na fila e, em meio a esse cenário, um homem humilde tentava vender seu produto. Mas sua abordagem não era estratégica; ao invés de destacar os benefícios do amendoim, ele suplicava para que alguém o ajudasse comprando. O resultado? Ninguém se interessou.

A jovem observou que o problema não era o produto, mas a forma como ele estava sendo oferecido. Afinal, muitas das pessoas ali estavam há horas esperando e perto do horário do almoço – o amendoim poderia ser um ótimo tira-gosto. No entanto, como a comunicação do vendedor vinha carregada de desespero, ele afastava os clientes ao invés de atraí-los. Esse vídeo me tocou profundamente.

No dia seguinte, ao sair para comemorar meu aniversário, vi um menino vendendo balas na rua, sob o sol forte. Assim como no caso do amendoim, percebi que as pessoas ao redor não se interessavam por seu produto. Ao se aproximar do carro, resolvi comprar dois pacotes. Mais do que ajudar, queria que aquele pequeno gesto servisse como incentivo para que ele continuasse acreditando no seu negócio.

Essa experiência me fez refletir ainda mais sobre o poder da comunicação em vendas. Muitas vezes, não é o produto que está errado, mas sim a forma como o vendedor o apresenta. Quando transmitimos confiança e mostramos o valor do que vendemos, despertamos o interesse genuíno dos clientes.

Como a Linguagem Impacta as Vendas?

1. O Poder da Abordagem Positiva

Em vez de pedir por ajuda, é importante destacar os benefícios do produto. No caso do amendoim, o vendedor poderia ter dito algo como: "Que tal um petisco delicioso enquanto espera? Um amendoim fresquinho para matar a fome até o almoço!"

2. A Emoção na Medida Certa

Expressar emoção é essencial, mas sem parecer desesperado. Os clientes devem sentir que estão adquirindo algo de valor, não apenas ajudando o vendedor.

3. Conheça Seu Público

Entender o contexto é fundamental. Se as pessoas estavam com fome e impacientes, uma abordagem mais objetiva e focada no benefício do produto poderia gerar mais vendas.

4. Autoconfiança e Postura

Falar com firmeza e segurança transmite credibilidade. O vendedor precisa acreditar no próprio produto antes de convencer o cliente a comprá-lo.

Conclusão

Vender é mais do que apenas oferecer um produto – é uma arte que envolve comunicação, percepção e estratégia. Pequenos ajustes na abordagem podem transformar completamente os resultados. Se o vendedor de amendoim tivesse apresentado seu produto de outra maneira, talvez tivesse vendido tudo rapidamente. Da mesma forma, se cada um de nós aprender a se comunicar melhor em nossas próprias áreas, poderemos alcançar muito mais sucesso.

E você? Já passou por uma experiência parecida?

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 04cb16e4:2ec3e5d5

Meine erste "Begegnung" mit Ulrike hatte ich am 21. März 2022 - dank Amazon konnte ich das Ereignis noch exakt nachvollziehen. Es war eines meiner ersten (Lockdown) kritischen Bücher, die ich in dieser Zeit in die Hände bekam - noch nach Thomas Röper (das war mein Einstieg) aber vor Daniele Ganser. Insofern war es mir möglich, das, was dann folgte für die Autorin, live und in Farbe mit zu verfolgen:

"Wer sich in die Öffentlichkeit traut, kann sich dort ganz schnell eine blutige Nase holen. Dieselben Medien, die eine Person heute glorifizieren, stellen sie morgen an den Pranger. Sie verteilen und entziehen Reputation, fördern und zerstören Karrieren. Das Medium selbst bleibt jedoch immer auf der Siegerseite. Die Gesetze von Marktorientierung und zynisch-ideologisierter Machtausübung gelten für Rundfunk und Fernsehen ebenso wie für die Printmedien - von RTL bis ARD und ZDF, von der BILD über die taz bis zur ZEIT.

»Das Phänomen Guérot« legt genau diesen Vorgang detailliert offen: Der MENSCH Ulrike Guérot ist in der Realität nicht die dämonische Figur, als die sie hingestellt worden ist. Aber an ihr kristallisiert sich genau dieser menschenverachtende Prozess heraus, der bis heute andauert."

Im Herbst 2022 habe ich durch den ersten Vortrag von Daniele Ganser in Falkensee nicht nur Zugang zu einer für mich neuen und anderen Welt bekommen, ab da hat sich eigentlich auch für mich mein Leben komplett auf den Kopf gestellt. Die Weichen wurden zwar schon vorher gestellt, aber nun war es endgültig und es gab kein zurück mehr. Die Planung für das erste Symposium Falkensee war in meinem Kopf geboren und die MenschheitsFamilie entstand als Ort, der virtuell das vereinen sollte, was Daniele an Spiritualität, Menschlichkeit und Friedenswillen in mir freigesetzt hat. Es war sozusagen eine Energie, die nun stetig floß und einen Trichter gefunden hat, in dem sie wirksam werden und sich entfalten konnte. Insofern haben wir auch etwas gemeinsam - Ulrike und ich. Wir sind zu der Zeit auf einen Zug aufgesprungen, der unser Leben veränderte - der uns zwang, alte Wege zu verlassen und neue Wege zu beschreiten. Sowohl beruflich, als auch privat. Und auch das canceln und entfernt werden ist eine Erfahrung, die wir beide teilen. Vielleicht war es deswegen mein erster Gedanke im Herbst 2022, Ulrike Guérot zu meinem 1. Symposium nach Falkensee einzuladen. Das es dann erst beim 2. Anlauf wirklich geklappt hat, hatte auch mit den Höhen und Tiefen des Lebens in dieser Zeit zu tun gehabt.

Nun ist sie zum 2. Mal dabei - denn wer könnte das Thema "Europa" bei einem so wichtigen und hochaktuellen Thema besser vertreten und beleuchten als Ulrike Guérot? Es geht um Geschichte, es geht um Nationalitäten, es geht um Gemeinsamkeiten und um das, was uns hier im Herzen zusammenhält, was unsere Ziele und unsere Befindlichkeiten sind, es geht um Verantwortung und es geht vor allen Dingen um Frieden! Denn dafür steht Europa - für einen Kontinent, der es geschafft hat, trotz aller Gegensätze und Konflikte, die in Jahrhunderten kriegerisch aufgetragen wurden, eine neuen und besonderen Frieden zu finden und zu installieren:

"Völkerrechtlich legt der Westfälische Frieden den oder zumindest einen Grundstein für ein modernes Prinzip: Die Gleichberechtigung souveräner Staaten, unabhängig von ihrer Macht und Größe. Noch heute spricht die Politikwissenschaft, insbesondere die realistische Schule (Henry Kissinger), deshalb vom „Westphalian System“. Durch die Garantien der großen europäischen Mächte erweist sich dieser Frieden als stabilisierendes Element für die weitere Entwicklung in Europa. Noch bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts wird er immer wieder als Referenz für nachfolgende Friedensschlüsse herangezogen."

Es ging damals um viel und es geht heute um das Überleben auf einem Kontinent, der es eigentlich besser wissen sollte. Wir dürfen gespannt sein, was wir in diesem Vortrag von Ulrike auf dem Symposium Falkensee am 27. April 2025 für Lösungen finden, um wieder zu einer Ordnung und zu einem System der friedlichen Koexistenz zurückfinden zu können, ohne schwarz und weiß und mit all den Facetten, die das Leben uns so bietet:

"Es ging nicht mehr um das Ausfechten religiöser Wahrheiten, sondern um geregelte Verfahren, die es möglich machten, mit konkurrierenden religiösen Wahrheiten, die nach wie vor nebeneinander und unversöhnlich bestanden, auf friedliche Weise umzugehen. Deutlich wurde das nicht zuletzt, als der Papst in einer offiziellen Note scharf gegen den Friedensschluss protestierte, weil er die Rechte der katholischen Seite leichtfertig aufgegeben sah. Die katholischen Beteiligten des Abkommens hielt dies nicht von der Unterzeichnung ab - ein religiöser Schiedsrichter wurde in Sachen Krieg und Frieden nicht mehr akzeptiert."

https://www.menschheits-familie.de/symposium-falkensee

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Im Augenblick wird mit größter Intensität, großer Umsicht \ das deutsche Volk belogen. \ Olaf Scholz im FAZ-Interview

Online-Wahlen stärken die Demokratie, sind sicher, und 61 Prozent der Wahlberechtigten sprechen sich für deren Einführung in Deutschland aus. Das zumindest behauptet eine aktuelle Umfrage, die auch über die Agentur Reuters Verbreitung in den Medien gefunden hat. Demnach würden außerdem 45 Prozent der Nichtwähler bei der Bundestagswahl ihre Stimme abgeben, wenn sie dies zum Beispiel von Ihrem PC, Tablet oder Smartphone aus machen könnten.

Die telefonische Umfrage unter gut 1000 wahlberechtigten Personen sei repräsentativ, behauptet der Auftraggeber – der Digitalverband Bitkom. Dieser präsentiert sich als eingetragener Verein mit einer beeindruckenden Liste von Mitgliedern, die Software und IT-Dienstleistungen anbieten. Erklärtes Vereinsziel ist es, «Deutschland zu einem führenden Digitalstandort zu machen und die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung voranzutreiben».

Durchgeführt hat die Befragung die Bitkom Servicegesellschaft mbH, also alles in der Familie. Die gleiche Erhebung hatte der Verband übrigens 2021 schon einmal durchgeführt. Damals sprachen sich angeblich sogar 63 Prozent für ein derartiges «Demokratie-Update» aus – die Tendenz ist demgemäß fallend. Dennoch orakelt mancher, der Gang zur Wahlurne gelte bereits als veraltet.

Die spanische Privat-Uni mit Globalisten-Touch, IE University, berichtete Ende letzten Jahres in ihrer Studie «European Tech Insights», 67 Prozent der Europäer befürchteten, dass Hacker Wahlergebnisse verfälschen könnten. Mehr als 30 Prozent der Befragten glaubten, dass künstliche Intelligenz (KI) bereits Wahlentscheidungen beeinflusst habe. Trotzdem würden angeblich 34 Prozent der unter 35-Jährigen einer KI-gesteuerten App vertrauen, um in ihrem Namen für politische Kandidaten zu stimmen.

Wie dauerhaft wird wohl das Ergebnis der kommenden Bundestagswahl sein? Diese Frage stellt sich angesichts der aktuellen Entwicklung der Migrations-Debatte und der (vorübergehend) bröckelnden «Brandmauer» gegen die AfD. Das «Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz» der Union hat das Parlament heute Nachmittag überraschenderweise abgelehnt. Dennoch muss man wohl kein ausgesprochener Pessimist sein, um zu befürchten, dass die Entscheidungen der Bürger von den selbsternannten Verteidigern der Demokratie künftig vielleicht nicht respektiert werden, weil sie nicht gefallen.

Bundesweit wird jetzt zu «Brandmauer-Demos» aufgerufen, die CDU gerät unter Druck und es wird von Übergriffen auf Parteibüros und Drohungen gegen Mitarbeiter berichtet. Sicherheitsbehörden warnen vor Eskalationen, die Polizei sei «für ein mögliches erhöhtes Aufkommen von Straftaten gegenüber Politikern und gegen Parteigebäude sensibilisiert».

Der Vorwand «unzulässiger Einflussnahme» auf Politik und Wahlen wird als Argument schon seit einiger Zeit aufgebaut. Der Manipulation schuldig befunden wird neben Putin und Trump auch Elon Musk, was lustigerweise ausgerechnet Bill Gates gerade noch einmal bekräftigt und als «völlig irre» bezeichnet hat. Man stelle sich die Diskussionen um die Gültigkeit von Wahlergebnissen vor, wenn es Online-Verfahren zur Stimmabgabe gäbe. In der Schweiz wird «E-Voting» seit einigen Jahren getestet, aber wohl bisher mit wenig Erfolg.

Die politische Brandstiftung der letzten Jahre zahlt sich immer mehr aus. Anstatt dringende Probleme der Menschen zu lösen – zu denen auch in Deutschland die weit verbreitete Armut zählt –, hat die Politik konsequent polarisiert und sich auf Ausgrenzung und Verhöhnung großer Teile der Bevölkerung konzentriert. Basierend auf Ideologie und Lügen werden abweichende Stimmen unterdrückt und kriminalisiert, nicht nur und nicht erst in diesem Augenblick. Die nächsten Wochen dürften ausgesprochen spannend werden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ 09fbf8f3:fa3d60f0

快速轻松地删除任何图像的元数据。在网上共享照片、视频和文档之前，可以先从照片、视频和文档中删除元数据，来保护自己的隐私。

链接： 网站地址 | 项目地址

---

推广链接： 低调云（VPN）： https://didiaocloud.xyz

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die grauenvollste Aussicht ist die der Technokratie – \ einer kontrollierenden Herrschaft, \ die durch verstümmelte und verstümmelnde Geister ausgeübt wird. \ Ernst Jünger

«Davos ist nicht mehr sexy», das Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) mache Davos kaputt, diese Aussagen eines Einheimischen las ich kürzlich in der Handelszeitung. Während sich einige vor Ort enorm an der «teuersten Gewerbeausstellung der Welt» bereicherten, würden die negativen Begleiterscheinungen wie Wohnungsnot und Niedergang der lokalen Wirtschaft immer deutlicher.

Nächsten Montag beginnt in dem Schweizer Bergdorf erneut ein Jahrestreffen dieses elitären Clubs der Konzerne, bei dem man mit hochrangigen Politikern aus aller Welt und ausgewählten Vertretern der Systemmedien zusammenhocken wird. Wie bereits in den vergangenen vier Jahren wird die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission, Ursula von der Leyen, in Begleitung von Klaus Schwab ihre Grundsatzansprache halten.

Der deutsche WEF-Gründer hatte bei dieser Gelegenheit immer höchst lobende Worte für seine Landsmännin: 2021 erklärte er sich «stolz, dass Europa wieder unter Ihrer Führung steht» und 2022 fand er es bemerkenswert, was sie erreicht habe angesichts des «erstaunlichen Wandels», den die Welt in den vorangegangenen zwei Jahren erlebt habe; es gebe nun einen «neuen europäischen Geist».

Von der Leyens Handeln während der sogenannten Corona-«Pandemie» lobte Schwab damals bereits ebenso, wie es diese Woche das Karlspreis-Direktorium tat, als man der Beschuldigten im Fall Pfizergate die diesjährige internationale Auszeichnung «für Verdienste um die europäische Einigung» verlieh. Außerdem habe sie die EU nicht nur gegen den «Aggressor Russland», sondern auch gegen die «innere Bedrohung durch Rassisten und Demagogen» sowie gegen den Klimawandel verteidigt.

Jene Herausforderungen durch «Krisen epochalen Ausmaßes» werden indes aus dem Umfeld des WEF nicht nur herbeigeredet – wie man alljährlich zur Zeit des Davoser Treffens im Global Risks Report nachlesen kann, der zusammen mit dem Versicherungskonzern Zurich erstellt wird. Seit die Globalisten 2020/21 in der Praxis gesehen haben, wie gut eine konzertierte und konsequente Angst-Kampagne funktionieren kann, geht es Schlag auf Schlag. Sie setzen alles daran, Schwabs goldenes Zeitfenster des «Great Reset» zu nutzen.

Ziel dieses «großen Umbruchs» ist die totale Kontrolle der Technokraten über die Menschen unter dem Deckmantel einer globalen Gesundheitsfürsorge. Wie aber könnte man so etwas erreichen? Ein Mittel dazu ist die «kreative Zerstörung». Weitere unabdingbare Werkzeug sind die Einbindung, ja Gleichschaltung der Medien und der Justiz.

Ein «Great Mental Reset» sei die Voraussetzung dafür, dass ein Großteil der Menschen Einschränkungen und Manipulationen wie durch die Corona-Maßnahmen praktisch kritik- und widerstandslos hinnehme, sagt der Mediziner und Molekulargenetiker Michael Nehls. Er meint damit eine regelrechte Umprogrammierung des Gehirns, wodurch nach und nach unsere Individualität und unser soziales Bewusstsein eliminiert und durch unreflektierten Konformismus ersetzt werden.

Der aktuelle Zustand unserer Gesellschaften ist auch für den Schweizer Rechtsanwalt Philipp Kruse alarmierend. Durch den Umgang mit der «Pandemie» sieht er die Grundlagen von Recht und Vernunft erschüttert, die Rechtsstaatlichkeit stehe auf dem Prüfstand. Seiner dringenden Mahnung an alle Bürger, die Prinzipien von Recht und Freiheit zu verteidigen, kann ich mich nur anschließen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

So sehr der Gedanke auch verlockend ist, es ist leider nicht möglich, den Staat durch Steuerzahlungsverweigerung auszuhungern, obwohl die absurde, generationenübergreifende Sonderverschuldung geradezu danach schreit. Das hysterische Herbeireden einer Bedrohung durch Russland wird durch die Steuerzahler zwangsfinanziert. Die zu melkende Kuh kann nicht aus ihrem Stall ausbrechen. Nach wie vor gibt es Menschen, die ihre Steuererklärung fristgerecht abgeben möchten, die sich daraus ergebende Steuerschuld jedoch auf einem Notar-Anderkonto so lange parken wollen, bis die Vertreter der deutschen Kakistokratie mit totalitären, faschistischen, kommunistischen, bolschewistischen und sozialistischen Strömungen, zu lebenslangem Sozialdienst in Senioren-Residenzen (oder lieber nicht) verdonnert wurden oder sich ihre Spuren in selbstloser Aufopferung für Unseredemokratie in der Ukraine verloren haben.

Sobald eine Regierung, die zuerst zu beweisen hätte, dass sie bei Verstand ist und ihr Ohr wieder am Willen des Volkes hat, würden diese eingefrorenen Gelder des Souveräns von demselben für mit ihm abgestimmte Projekte zugunsten des Gemeinwohls freigegeben werden. Ein Mitspracherecht der Bevölkerung ist dringend notwendig und laut Grundgesetz auch möglich! Denunzierungsportale und staatlich geförderte NGOs gehörten sicher nicht dazu.

Auch, wenn mit allen Mitteln versucht wird, der demokratischen Grundordnung durch verhaltensauffällig-denkeingeschränkte Ideologinnen und Ideologen den größtmöglichen Schaden, den selbige als solchen nicht erkennen wollen, zuzufügen, gibt es dennoch Möglichkeiten des Widerstands.

Derzeit könnte hilfreich sein:

So viele wie möglich distanzieren sich so weit wie möglich von allen staatlichen Institutionen und bedienen das vom Alt-Parteien-Kartell missbrauchte System nur noch im geringst möglichen Maß.

Es sollte jede Möglichkeit genutzt werden, mit legalen Mitteln Sand ins Getriebe zu streuen.

Es ist die demokratische Pflicht des Souveräns, NEIN zu sagen, wo immer er denkt, dass Freiheit und Demokratie in Gefahr sind. Wer mit offenen Augen durch das Land geht, findet Gründe genug. Zu bestimmen, was Lüge ist, ist nicht Aufgabe der Politik. Dieses Vorgehen gleicht betreutem Denken innerhalb eines vorbestimmten Korridors für ein entmündigtes Volk. Antrieb ist das unbedingte Festhalten an der Macht, die in weiten Teilen längst keinen Rückhalt mehr in der Bevölkerung und sogar innerhalb der Parteien selbst hat.

Zur Erinnerung: Die Meinungsfreiheit schließt auch Lügen ein. Die hier oft aus der Schublade geholte „Nazi-Keule“ dient vor allem der Rechtfertigung der politischen Vorgaben und missbraucht so die Achtung vor den Gräueltaten in der vorläufig dunkelsten Zeit der deutschen Geschichte. Es gibt Anzeichen dafür, sich in Sachen Machtmissbrauch dieser so weit wie möglich anzunähern.

Es ist die demokratische Pflicht zu sagen „ICH MACHE DA NICHT MIT“, wenn politische Entscheidungen getroffen werden, die sich einer friedlichen Einigung und in Konflikten, diplomatischen Verhandlungen, entgegenstellen.

Es ist ein Friedensgebot aller Mütter und Väter, klar und deutlich anzusagen:

„NEIN, MEINE SÖHNE UND TÖCHTER GEB ICH NICHT HER!“

Die Gehirnwäsche und Propaganda-Beschallung durch die Medienkartelle in Funk, Fernsehen und Presse sind zu meiden, wie eine hochansteckende Hauterkrankung bei gleichzeitiger Vergiftung der inneren Organe.

Zahlungen sollten, wo immer es möglich ist, in bar erfolgen. Dies sollte so als Notwendigkeit verinnerlicht werden, wie das Ein- und Ausatmen.

Ein Aufruf zu öffentlichen Protestbekundungen hat derzeit wenig Sinn, da es die deutsche Mentalität nicht hergibt, das Bedürfnis zu spüren, in Massen auf die Straße zu gehen. In anderen europäischen Staaten sieht das anders aus. Besonders beeindruckend jüngst die Friedensaufrufe in Rom mit Menschenmengen, von denen man in Deutschland nur träumen kann.

Die Realität zeigt, dass für eine Veränderung die breite Masse in Deutschland momentan nicht zu gewinnen ist. Zu tief steckt der Deutsche Michel mit seiner German Angst in den Seelen. Daher ist es zunächst die Aufgabe der kritischen, wachen und Dummschwätz-immunen Menschen, einen „Wandel zur Vernunft und eine Abkehr vom Wahnsinn“ herbeizuführen.

Es ist die Zeit gekommen, dass so viele wie möglich, dem Regime, die wohlverdiente, größtmögliche Verachtung, für die Aushöhlung der Demokratie, die massive Einschränkung der Rede- und Meinungsfreiheit, die zu oft systemkonforme Rechtsprechung, die Ausweitung der Spaltung und das Vergessen-machen-wollen der deutschen Geschichte, entgegenbringen.

Was Deutschland fehlt, ist Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit.

Sollte es, derzeit noch wider Erwarten, dennoch dazu kommen, dass der bereits vorhandene friedliche Widerstand eine wachsende Kraft erzeugen könnte, die Weitere dazu veranlasst, sich ihrer Kraft als der Souverän dieses einst ertragbar-demokratischen Staates wieder bewusst zu werden, wäre ein Generalstreik zu organisieren, um die Macht wieder dahin zu befördern, wo sie hingehört: Nämlich zu den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern eines Landes, das weitgehend vergessen hat, dass seine Ahnen die Demokratie mit ihrem Blut erkämpft haben und dass die Demokratie kein Dauergeschenk ist, für das man sich nie wieder einzusetzen hat. Die derzeitigen Machthaber haben ihren Auftrag zum Wohle des deutschen Volkes tätig zu sein offensichtlich vergessen. Man muss sie dringend wieder daran erinnern, wofür sie gewählt wurden: Die Interessen des Volkes umzusetzen und nicht ihre Vorstellungen davon. In ihrer Überheblichkeit glauben sie zu wissen, was gut für das Volk ist. Leider wissen sie es nicht!

Eine Einordnung als „Hass und Hetze“ durch das deutsch-orwellsche Wahrheitsministerium verbietet sich, da dies die perfiden Maßnahmen im Dritten Reich zu Unrecht relativieren würden.

Die Menschlichkeit gebietet, den verirrten Geistern in Entscheiderpositionen Mitgefühl entgegenzubringen, da sie in gutem Glauben und der Überzeugung sind, nur Gutes zum Wohle des deutschen Volkes, schadenabwendend zu vollbringen. Grund ist die Ideologie, von der sie gar nicht merken (oder es nicht merken wollen), dass sie in ihr gefangen sind.

Nachgeschlagen in einem deutschen Herkunftswörterbuch von 2001 kommt das Wort „Delegitimation“ noch gar nicht vor. Diese Neuschöpfung scheint, durch die politische Kaste entstanden, der Notwendigkeit geschuldet zu sein, kritische Stimmen mundtot machen zu wollen. Sie dient einzig und allein als Totschlagargument. Jeder, der seine demokratische Pflicht wahrnimmt, politische Entscheidungen zu hinterfragen und Kritik auszusprechen, trägt zur lebendigen Debattenkultur bei und hält damit die in einer Demokratie innewohnende Meinungsfreiheit hoch. Kritik, und sei sie noch so scharf, als Delegitimation zu bezeichnen, spricht eher von einer charakterlichen Fehlbildung und Ungeeignetheit für ein politisches Amt in einer Demokratie, als dass sie Respekt vor der Meinungsäußerung des Souveräns zeigt. Gleichzeitig entlarvt die Erfindung des Begriffes Delegitimation, anstelle von Zensur (das wäre zu offensichtlich), durch ihrer Realitätsferne, die fehlende politische Wirkungskraft, so dass man nicht mehr anders weiter weiß, als sich von der Demokratie entfernend, totalitär anmutender Mittel bedienen zu müssen.

Mit den Mitteln der Freiheit sind die Menschen in der Lage, diese armen Politiker-Seelen von ihrem Leiden zu befreien. Ein Besinnen auf die christliche Kultur des Abendlandes kann hier sehr hilfreich sein. Ein Erinnern an die europäische Kultur und Geschichte ebenso.

Dass viele Menschen die legitimen Mittel der Freiheit derzeit nicht nutzen, liegt vielleicht daran, dass das, was ihnen bisher als Freiheit verkauft wurde, aus menschlicher Sicht gar keine Freiheit ist. Die Auswahl in einem 5 Meter langen Yoghurt-Regal ist keine Freiheit! Vielleicht haben viele Menschen sogar Angst vor wirklicher, innerer Freiheit, weil da eine große innere Leere ist, die mit eigener Persönlichkeit durch individuelle, charakterliche Eigenschaften auszufüllen wäre. Man kann diesen Menschen noch nicht einmal einen Vorwurf daraus machen, weil das Bildungssystem gar kein Interesse daran hat, zu viele Menschen heranzubilden, die die Demokratie-Simulation durchschauen.

Es scheint, als würde man mit allen Mitteln versuchen, den jahrhundertealten geschichtlichen Faden Deutschlands und Europas durchschneiden zu wollen und den dunklen Teil der deutschen Geschichte ausklammernd dazu zu missbrauchen, den fortgeschrittenen Wahnsinn zu legitimieren.

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

Hackathon 概要

Hack The Grid — Level 2 是 LUKSO 推出的四级创作者项目的第二阶段，重点在于开发mini去中心化应用程序（dApps）。本阶段共有 70 名注册开发者参与，最终审批了 41 个 BUIDL 项目。该阶段鼓励参与者在 AI 代理、社交 DeFi、创作者货币化及游戏化等领域创新，致力于将 Universal Profiles 打造成集数字身份、社交互动与创造力于一体的多功能空间。

活动于 2025 年 2 月至 4 月开展，总资金池达 150,000 LYX，分配至各个级别。参与者可在多个阶段远程参与，1 至 3 级的成功项目将在第 4 级的社区资助轮中获得额外支持。

黑客松日程包含办公时间与学习会议，通过前期获奖者的见解为参赛者提供帮助。除技术实验外，活动还营造了协作开发环境，展现了去中心化应用程序创建的潜力，培育了生态系统中的创新。Hack The Grid 凸显了开发者社区的积极参与以及值得关注的项目贡献。

Hackathon 获奖者

ORIGIN GRANTS 奖项获奖作品

在第2级类别中，两个项目因其技术创新和对生态系统目标的对齐获得了Origin Grants的认可。

• Hiraeth Mini App： 此应用程序将区块链交易转变为基于NFT的数字文物，通过独特的表现形式捕捉各链上的历史叙事。
• Multisend - Defolio： MultiSend 提供了一种简化的方法，用于在单个交易中在 LUKSO 区块链上执行多个代币和NFT的转移，提高了资产管理的效率。

这些获奖项目以其对智能合约安全性、用户友好的界面、技术执行以及对 LUKSO 社区的价值增值而闻名。每位Origin Grant获奖者将获得价值$2,250的LYX，其中70%会提前发放，剩余金额取决于实现以采用为重点的KPI。获奖者还有机会进军第4级——社区资助轮，通过二次方融资获得额外的$24,000 LYX。

完整项目列表，请访问 DoraHacks。

关于组织者

LUKSO

LUKSO 是一家专注于区块链解决方案的技术导向型组织，专注于数字生活方式和创意经济。它因其在区块链基础设施领域的贡献而获得认可，并在开发增强用户中心身份和数字所有权的应用程序中扮演重要角色。该组织在创建Universal Profiles方面起了重要作用，促进了数字平台之间的无缝交互。目前，LUKSO 旨在扩大区块链在日常数字体验中的角色，优先考虑安全性和可访问性，以此为技术领域内多样化的用户群体服务。

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

Hackathon 概述

Innovate on Creator Network #Creathon 圆满落幕，116 位注册开发者中有 44 个项目获批。此次黑客松的主要目标是借助去中心化应用程序（dApps），在去中心化金融（DeFi）、非同质化代币（NFTs）、游戏及社会影响等领域，强化 Creator Network 生态系统。活动于 2025 年 1 月 19 日至 2 月 24 日期间举办，设置了 1,250 USDT 的奖金池，将颁发给十名获奖者，其中前三名的奖金在 200 美元至 300 美元之间。

在此次黑客松中展示的项目，通过创新性和功能性，展现了对 Creator Network 生态系统的潜在影响。这些项目如今有机会进一步融入平台并获得支持。活动极大地吸引了开发者参与，参与者们利用了 Creator Network 的开发工具和测试网。这一举措标志着，在通过创新技术方案拓展 Creator Network 能力及强化其生态系统方面，迈出了重要一步。

Hackathon 获奖者

Creator Network 奖项获奖者

• DeFi Connect Credit： 在Creator Testnet Network上运作的去中心化交易所，通过提供代币交换、锁定、深度流动性和投票机制来增强去中心化和流动性管理，提高DeFi解决方案。
• Lumoswap： 基于Creatorchain的去中心化交易所，提供快速、安全且用户友好的交易体验。它解决了DeFi生态系统中交易速度和安全性等关键问题。
• Sendtokens： 一个具备自我保管功能的加密货币钱包，通过简化交易和提高用户体验，解决了与冗长钱包地址和界面可用性相关的常见挑战。
• Tokens： 该平台简化了加密货币代币的创建，提供在去中心化环境中高效管理和部署的工具，确保即时可见性和实用性。
• ProtectedPay： 一个多链DeFi平台，促进安全交易和群组支付。它整合了储蓄功能，以在区块链网络中增强安全性和便利性。
• AuditFi_Creator： 利用AI技术为智能合约提供即时链上审计报告，从而加强Creator Network生态系统中的信任和安全性。

关于所有项目的详细信息，请访问 Hackathon 详情页 。

组织者信息

Creator Network

Creator Network 是一家以技术为核心的组织，专注于区块链解决方案。它因开发增强区块链互操作性和安全性的去中心化平台而闻名。该组织已经推出了多个项目，旨在改善数字资产管理和智能合约功能。Creator Network 致力于扩展区块链的可访问性，促进数字生态系统的透明度。

@ b2d670de:907f9d4a

This is a list of nostr clients exposed as onion services. The list is currently actively maintained on GitHub. Contributions are always appreciated!

| Client name | Onion URL | Source code URL | Admin | Description | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Snort | http://agzj5a4be3kgp6yurijk4q7pm2yh4a5nphdg4zozk365yirf7ahuctyd.onion | https://git.v0l.io/Kieran/snort | operator | N/A | | moStard | http://sifbugd5nwdq77plmidkug4y57zuqwqio3zlyreizrhejhp6bohfwkad.onion/ | https://github.com/rafael-xmr/nostrudel/tree/mostard | operator | minimalist monero friendly nostrudel fork | | Nostrudel | http://oxtrnmb4wsb77rmk64q3jfr55fo33luwmsyaoovicyhzgrulleiojsad.onion/ | https://github.com/hzrd149/nostrudel | operator | Runs latest tagged docker image | | Nostrudel Next | http://oxtrnnumsflm7hmvb3xqphed2eqpbrt4seflgmdsjnpgc3ejd6iycuyd.onion/ | https://github.com/hzrd149/nostrudel | operator | Runs latest "next" tagged docker image | | Nsite | http://q457mvdt5smqj726m4lsqxxdyx7r3v7gufzt46zbkop6mkghpnr7z3qd.onion/ | https://github.com/hzrd149/nsite-ts | operator | Runs nsite. You can read more about nsite here. | | Shopstr | http://6fkdn756yryd5wurkq7ifnexupnfwj6sotbtby2xhj5baythl4cyf2id.onion/ | https://github.com/shopstr-eng/shopstr-hidden-service | operator | Runs the latest serverless branch build of Shopstr. |

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, \ um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben. \ Mark Zuckerberg

Sind euch auch die Tränen gekommen, als ihr Mark Zuckerbergs Wendehals-Deklaration bezüglich der Meinungsfreiheit auf seinen Portalen gehört habt? Rührend, oder? Während er früher die offensichtliche Zensur leugnete und später die Regierung Biden dafür verantwortlich machte, will er nun angeblich «die Zensur auf unseren Plattformen drastisch reduzieren».

«Purer Opportunismus» ob des anstehenden Regierungswechsels wäre als Klassifizierung viel zu kurz gegriffen. Der jetzige Schachzug des Meta-Chefs ist genauso Teil einer kühl kalkulierten Business-Strategie, wie es die 180 Grad umgekehrte Praxis vorher war. Social Media sind ein höchst lukratives Geschäft. Hinzu kommt vielleicht noch ein bisschen verkorkstes Ego, weil derartig viel Einfluss und Geld sicher auch auf die Psyche schlagen. Verständlich.

«Es ist an der Zeit, zu unseren Wurzeln der freien Meinungsäußerung auf Facebook und Instagram zurückzukehren. Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben», sagte Zuckerberg.

Welche Wurzeln? Hat der Mann vergessen, dass er von der Überwachung, dem Ausspionieren und dem Ausverkauf sämtlicher Daten und digitaler Spuren sowie der Manipulation seiner «Kunden» lebt? Das ist knallharter Kommerz, nichts anderes. Um freie Meinungsäußerung geht es bei diesem Geschäft ganz sicher nicht, und das war auch noch nie so. Die Wurzeln von Facebook liegen in einem Projekt des US-Militärs mit dem Namen «LifeLog». Dessen Ziel war es, «ein digitales Protokoll vom Leben eines Menschen zu erstellen».

Der Richtungswechsel kommt allerdings nicht überraschend. Schon Anfang Dezember hatte Meta-Präsident Nick Clegg von «zu hoher Fehlerquote bei der Moderation» von Inhalten gesprochen. Bei der Gelegenheit erwähnte er auch, dass Mark sehr daran interessiert sei, eine aktive Rolle in den Debatten über eine amerikanische Führungsrolle im technologischen Bereich zu spielen.

Während Milliardärskollege und Big Tech-Konkurrent Elon Musk bereits seinen Posten in der kommenden Trump-Regierung in Aussicht hat, möchte Zuckerberg also nicht nur seine Haut retten – Trump hatte ihn einmal einen «Feind des Volkes» genannt und ihm lebenslange Haft angedroht –, sondern am liebsten auch mitspielen. KI-Berater ist wohl die gewünschte Funktion, wie man nach einem Treffen Trump-Zuckerberg hörte. An seine Verhaftung dachte vermutlich auch ein weiterer Multimilliardär mit eigener Social Media-Plattform, Pavel Durov, als er Zuckerberg jetzt kritisierte und gleichzeitig warnte.

Politik und Systemmedien drehen jedenfalls durch – was zu viel ist, ist zu viel. Etwas weniger Zensur und mehr Meinungsfreiheit würden die Freiheit der Bürger schwächen und seien potenziell vernichtend für die Menschenrechte. Zuckerberg setze mit dem neuen Kurs die Demokratie aufs Spiel, das sei eine «Einladung zum nächsten Völkermord», ernsthaft. Die Frage sei, ob sich die EU gegen Musk und Zuckerberg behaupten könne, Brüssel müsse jedenfalls hart durchgreifen.

Auch um die Faktenchecker macht man sich Sorgen. Für die deutsche Nachrichtenagentur dpa und die «Experten» von Correctiv, die (noch) Partner für Fact-Checking-Aktivitäten von Facebook sind, sei das ein «lukratives Geschäftsmodell». Aber möglicherweise werden die Inhalte ohne diese vermeintlichen Korrektoren ja sogar besser. Anders als Meta wollen jedoch Scholz, Faeser und die Tagesschau keine Fehler zugeben und zum Beispiel Correctiv-Falschaussagen einräumen.

Bei derlei dramatischen Befürchtungen wundert es nicht, dass der öffentliche Plausch auf X zwischen Elon Musk und AfD-Chefin Alice Weidel von 150 EU-Beamten überwacht wurde, falls es irgendwelche Rechtsverstöße geben sollte, die man ihnen ankreiden könnte. Auch der Deutsche Bundestag war wachsam. Gefunden haben dürften sie nichts. Das Ganze war eher eine Show, viel Wind wurde gemacht, aber letztlich gab es nichts als heiße Luft.

Das Anbiedern bei Donald Trump ist indes gerade in Mode. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) tut das auch, denn sie fürchtet um Spenden von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Eventuell könnte ja Elon Musk auch hier künftig aushelfen und der Organisation sowie deren größtem privaten Förderer, Bill Gates, etwas unter die Arme greifen. Nachdem Musks KI-Projekt xAI kürzlich von BlackRock & Co. sechs Milliarden eingestrichen hat, geht da vielleicht etwas.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Here’s a revised timeline of macro-level events from The Mandibles: A Family, 2029–2047 by Lionel Shriver, reimagined in a world where Bitcoin is adopted as a widely accepted form of money, altering the original narrative’s assumptions about currency collapse and economic control. In Shriver’s original story, the failure of Bitcoin is assumed amid the dominance of the bancor and the dollar’s collapse. Here, Bitcoin’s success reshapes the economic and societal trajectory, decentralizing power and challenging state-driven outcomes.

Part One: 2029–2032

• 2029 (Early Year)\ The United States faces economic strain as the dollar weakens against global shifts. However, Bitcoin, having gained traction emerges as a viable alternative. Unlike the original timeline, the bancor—a supranational currency backed by a coalition of nations—struggles to gain footing as Bitcoin’s decentralized adoption grows among individuals and businesses worldwide, undermining both the dollar and the bancor.

• 2029 (Mid-Year: The Great Renunciation)\ Treasury bonds lose value, and the government bans Bitcoin, labeling it a threat to sovereignty (mirroring the original bancor ban). However, a Bitcoin ban proves unenforceable—its decentralized nature thwarts confiscation efforts, unlike gold in the original story. Hyperinflation hits the dollar as the U.S. prints money, but Bitcoin’s fixed supply shields adopters from currency devaluation, creating a dual-economy split: dollar users suffer, while Bitcoin users thrive.

• 2029 (Late Year)\ Dollar-based inflation soars, emptying stores of goods priced in fiat currency. Meanwhile, Bitcoin transactions flourish in underground and online markets, stabilizing trade for those plugged into the bitcoin ecosystem. Traditional supply chains falter, but peer-to-peer Bitcoin networks enable local and international exchange, reducing scarcity for early adopters. The government’s gold confiscation fails to bolster the dollar, as Bitcoin’s rise renders gold less relevant.

• 2030–2031\ Crime spikes in dollar-dependent urban areas, but Bitcoin-friendly regions see less chaos, as digital wallets and smart contracts facilitate secure trade. The U.S. government doubles down on surveillance to crack down on bitcoin use. A cultural divide deepens: centralized authority weakens in Bitcoin-adopting communities, while dollar zones descend into lawlessness.

• 2032\ By this point, Bitcoin is de facto legal tender in parts of the U.S. and globally, especially in tech-savvy or libertarian-leaning regions. The federal government’s grip slips as tax collection in dollars plummets—Bitcoin’s traceability is low, and citizens evade fiat-based levies. Rural and urban Bitcoin hubs emerge, while the dollar economy remains fractured.

Time Jump: 2032–2047

• Over 15 years, Bitcoin solidifies as a global reserve currency, eroding centralized control. The U.S. government adapts, grudgingly integrating bitcoin into policy, though regional autonomy grows as Bitcoin empowers local economies.

Part Two: 2047

• 2047 (Early Year)\ The U.S. is a hybrid state: Bitcoin is legal tender alongside a diminished dollar. Taxes are lower, collected in BTC, reducing federal overreach. Bitcoin’s adoption has decentralized power nationwide. The bancor has faded, unable to compete with Bitcoin’s grassroots momentum.

• 2047 (Mid-Year)\ Travel and trade flow freely in Bitcoin zones, with no restrictive checkpoints. The dollar economy lingers in poorer areas, marked by decay, but Bitcoin’s dominance lifts overall prosperity, as its deflationary nature incentivizes saving and investment over consumption. Global supply chains rebound, powered by bitcoin enabled efficiency.

• 2047 (Late Year)\ The U.S. is a patchwork of semi-autonomous zones, united by Bitcoin’s universal acceptance rather than federal control. Resource scarcity persists due to past disruptions, but economic stability is higher than in Shriver’s original dystopia—Bitcoin’s success prevents the authoritarian slide, fostering a freer, if imperfect, society.

Key Differences

• Currency Dynamics: Bitcoin’s triumph prevents the bancor’s dominance and mitigates hyperinflation’s worst effects, offering a lifeline outside state control.
• Government Power: Centralized authority weakens as Bitcoin evades bans and taxation, shifting power to individuals and communities.
• Societal Outcome: Instead of a surveillance state, 2047 sees a decentralized, bitcoin driven world—less oppressive, though still stratified between Bitcoin haves and have-nots.

This reimagining assumes Bitcoin overcomes Shriver’s implied skepticism to become a robust, adopted currency by 2029, fundamentally altering the novel’s bleak trajectory.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was du bist hängt von drei Faktoren ab: \ Was du geerbt hast, \ was deine Umgebung aus dir machte \ und was du in freier Wahl \ aus deiner Umgebung und deinem Erbe gemacht hast. \ Aldous Huxley

Das brave Mitmachen und Mitlaufen in einem vorgegebenen, recht engen Rahmen ist gewiss nicht neu, hat aber gerade wieder mal Konjunktur. Dies kann man deutlich beobachten, eigentlich egal, in welchem gesellschaftlichen Bereich man sich umschaut. Individualität ist nur soweit angesagt, wie sie in ein bestimmtes Schema von «Diversität» passt, und Freiheit verkommt zur Worthülse – nicht erst durch ein gewisses Buch einer gewissen ehemaligen Regierungschefin.

Erklärungsansätze für solche Entwicklungen sind bekannt, und praktisch alle haben etwas mit Massenpsychologie zu tun. Der Herdentrieb, also der Trieb der Menschen, sich – zum Beispiel aus Unsicherheit oder Bequemlichkeit – lieber der Masse anzuschließen als selbstständig zu denken und zu handeln, ist einer der Erklärungsversuche. Andere drehen sich um Macht, Propaganda, Druck und Angst, also den gezielten Einsatz psychologischer Herrschaftsinstrumente.

Aber wollen die Menschen überhaupt Freiheit? Durch Gespräche im privaten Umfeld bin ich diesbezüglich in der letzten Zeit etwas skeptisch geworden. Um die Jahreswende philosophiert man ja gerne ein wenig über das Erlebte und über die Erwartungen für die Zukunft. Dabei hatte ich hin und wieder den Eindruck, die totalitären Anwandlungen unserer «Repräsentanten» kämen manchen Leuten gerade recht.

«Desinformation» ist so ein brisantes Thema. Davor müsse man die Menschen doch schützen, hörte ich. Jemand müsse doch zum Beispiel diese ganzen merkwürdigen Inhalte in den Social Media filtern – zur Ukraine, zum Klima, zu Gesundheitsthemen oder zur Migration. Viele wüssten ja gar nicht einzuschätzen, was richtig und was falsch ist, sie bräuchten eine Führung.

Freiheit bedingt Eigenverantwortung, ohne Zweifel. Eventuell ist es einigen tatsächlich zu anspruchsvoll, die Verantwortung für das eigene Tun und Lassen zu übernehmen. Oder die persönliche Freiheit wird nicht als ausreichend wertvolles Gut angesehen, um sich dafür anzustrengen. In dem Fall wäre die mangelnde Selbstbestimmung wohl das kleinere Übel. Allerdings fehlt dann gemäß Aldous Huxley ein Teil der Persönlichkeit. Letztlich ist natürlich alles eine Frage der Abwägung.

Sind viele Menschen möglicherweise schon so «eingenordet», dass freiheitliche Ambitionen gar nicht für eine ganze Gruppe, ein Kollektiv, verfolgt werden können? Solche Gedanken kamen mir auch, als ich mir kürzlich diverse Talks beim viertägigen Hacker-Kongress des Chaos Computer Clubs (38C3) anschaute. Ich war nicht nur überrascht, sondern reichlich erschreckt angesichts der in weiten Teilen mainstream-geformten Inhalte, mit denen ein dankbares Publikum beglückt wurde. Wo ich allgemein hellere Köpfe erwartet hatte, fand ich Konformismus und enthusiastisch untermauerte Narrative.

Gibt es vielleicht so etwas wie eine Herdenimmunität gegen Indoktrination? Ich denke, ja, zumindest eine gestärkte Widerstandsfähigkeit. Was wir brauchen, sind etwas gesunder Menschenverstand, offene Informationskanäle und der Mut, sich freier auch zwischen den Herden zu bewegen. Sie tun das bereits, aber sagen Sie es auch dieses Jahr ruhig weiter.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ f57bac88:6045161e

پازل فناوری: ساختاری بی‌پایان

اینترنت و فناوری مثل موجوداتی زنده‌اند؛ همواره در حال رشد، تغییر و دگرگونی. برای ساده‌سازی، فرض می‌کنیم این پازل از سه بخش اصلی تشکیل شده:\ تکه‌های فعال (آنچه اکنون در دسترس ماست)،\ تکه‌های در حال توسعه (آنچه در راه است)، و\ تکه‌های خالی (آنچه جایش حس می‌شود).\ در ادامه، هر تکه را با جزئیات بررسی می‌کنم تا هیچ بخشی از این پازل از قلم نیفتد.

---

تکه‌های فعال: ستون‌های دنیای دیجیتال امروز

این تکه‌ها پایه‌های فناوری و اینترنت امروزی‌اند که بدون آن‌ها، زندگی مدرن قابل‌تصور نیست. تا بهار ۱۴۰۴، این بخش‌ها به بلوغ رسیده‌اند و هر روز در حال استفاده‌اند:

• شبکه‌های نوری پرسرعت: کابل‌هایی که داده‌ها را با سرعت بالا منتقل می‌کنند و اینترنتی پایدار و سریع را به خانه‌ها و شهرها رسانده‌اند.

• نسل پنجم ارتباطات سیار: فناوری ارتباطی جدیدی که با سرعت بالا و زمان پاسخ‌دهی بسیار کم، ابزارهای هوشمند را به هم متصل می‌کند.

• اینترنت ماهواره‌ای: پروژه‌هایی که اتصال اینترنت را به دورافتاده‌ترین نقاط کره زمین می‌برند.

• رایانش ابری: خدماتی بر پایه‌ی سرورهای اینترنتی که ذخیره‌سازی و پردازش داده‌ها را آسان کرده‌اند.

• شبکه‌های اجتماعی دیجیتال: فضاهایی که گفت‌وگو، اشتراک‌گذاری و ارتباط را به بستر اینترنت آورده‌اند.

• بازرگانی الکترونیکی: فروشگاه‌ها و بازارهایی که خرید و فروش را به شکل آنلاین و جهانی ممکن کرده‌اند.

• ابزارهای جست‌وجوی اینترنتی: موتورهایی که در کسری از ثانیه، اطلاعات سراسر دنیا را در اختیارمان می‌گذارند.

• پخش اینترنتی محتوا: سامانه‌هایی که فیلم، موسیقی و ویدیو را به صورت آنلاین و لحظه‌ای ارائه می‌دهند.

• برنامه‌های تلفن همراه: نرم‌افزارهایی که تجربه‌ی دیجیتال را شخصی، سریع و قابل‌حمل کرده‌اند.

• ابزارهای هوشمند خانگی: وسایلی که با اتصال به اینترنت، خانه را خودکار و هوشمند می‌کنند.

• هوش رایانه‌ای: سامانه‌هایی که توانایی درک، تحلیل و تصمیم‌گیری را به فناوری داده‌اند.

• یادگیری ماشینی: شیوه‌هایی که رایانه از داده‌ها آموخته و نتایج بهتری ارائه می‌دهد.

• تحلیل داده‌های عظیم: بررسی حجم زیادی از اطلاعات برای کشف الگوها و تصمیم‌گیری بهتر.

• امنیت فضای مجازی: ابزارهایی برای محافظت از داده‌ها و سیستم‌ها در برابر تهدیدها.

• زنجیره‌ی بلوکی: فناوری‌ای برای انجام تراکنش‌های امن و شفاف بدون واسطه.

• پول‌های دیجیتال: ارزهایی که مفهوم پول را وارد دنیای رایانه‌ای کرده‌اند.

• واقعیت مجازی: فناوری‌ای که با استفاده از نمایشگرهای ویژه، افراد را وارد دنیایی شبیه‌سازی‌شده می‌کند.

• واقعیت افزوده: افزودن اطلاعات دیجیتال به دنیای واقعی از طریق نمایشگرها یا گوشی همراه.

• خانه‌های هوشمند: سامانه‌هایی که با یک لمس، نور و گرمای خانه را مدیریت می‌کنند.

• فناوری‌های پوشیدنی: ابزارهایی که بر بدن پوشیده می‌شوند و سلامت و فعالیت ما را پایش می‌کنند.

این تکه‌ها، ستون‌های اصلی پازل‌اند که هر روز با آن‌ها سر و کار داریم، ولی هنوز جای پیشرفت دارند، از امنیت بهتر تا دسترسی برابرتر.

---

تکه‌های در حال توسعه: نوآوری‌هایی در آستانه‌ی شکوفایی

این بخش، آینده‌ی نزدیک و دور فناوری را به تصویر می‌کشد؛ تکه‌هایی که در آزمایشگاه‌ها و پروژه‌های پژوهشی در حال شکل‌گیری‌اند و به‌زودی به پازل افزوده می‌شوند:

• نسل ششم ارتباطات سیار: ارتباطاتی با سرعتی فراتر از نسل پنجم.

• رایانش کوانتومی: رایانه‌هایی که بر پایه‌ی قوانین فیزیک کوانتوم، مسائل بسیار پیچیده را در لحظه حل می‌کنند.

• پردازش در لبه‌ی شبکه: انتقال بخشی از محاسبات به نزدیک‌ترین نقطه به محل تولید داده برای کاهش تأخیر و مصرف انرژی.

• وسایل نقلیه‌ی بدون راننده: خودروهایی که با کمک هوش رایانه‌ای و حسگرها، به‌تنهایی حرکت می‌کنند.

• رابط مغز و ماشین: فناوری‌ای که فعالیت‌های مغزی را به رایانه‌ها و دستگاه‌ها متصل می‌کند.

• شبکه‌های هوشمند انرژی: سامانه‌هایی برای مدیریت بهینه‌ی مصرف برق و منابع انرژی.

• پزشکی دیجیتال پیشرفته: بهره‌گیری از فناوری برای تشخیص و درمان بهتر، مانند جراحی رباتیک یا تحلیل داده‌های سلامت.

• مواد واکنش‌پذیر: موادی که با تغییر شرایط محیطی واکنش نشان می‌دهند، مانند پارچه‌هایی که ترمیم می‌شوند.

• هوش فراگیر رایانه‌ای: هوشی که می‌تواند همچون انسان در زمینه‌های مختلف فکر کند و خلاق باشد.

این تکه‌ها نویدبخش آینده‌ای هیجان‌انگیزند، اما هنوز نیاز به زمان، سرمایه‌گذاری و زیرساخت دارند تا کامل شوند.

---

تکه‌های خالی: خلأهایی که باید پر شوند

این بخش، جاهایی را نشان می‌دهد که هنوز کامل ساخته نشده‌اند یا نیاز به توجه ویژه دارند. این تکه‌ها، چالش‌ها و فرصت‌های آینده‌اند:

• دسترسی برابر به اینترنت برای همه: فراهم کردن اینترنت پرسرعت در همه‌جا، حتی مناطق دورافتاده.

• حفاظت کامل از حریم خصوصی: فناوری‌هایی که جلوی هر نوع سوءاستفاده از اطلاعات شخصی را بگیرند.

• تأمین انرژی پایدار برای فناوری: بهره‌گیری از منابع انرژی پاک برای تأمین نیازهای روزافزون.

• قوانین جهانی هماهنگ در زمینه فناوری: مقررات مشترکی که هماهنگی جهانی را ممکن کنند.

• بازیافت کامل تجهیزات دیجیتال: فرآیندهایی برای بازیافت زباله‌های الکترونیکی بدون آسیب به محیط زیست.

• هوش مصنوعی مسئول و منصفانه: سامانه‌هایی که تصمیم‌هایی بدون تبعیض و ناعادلانه می‌گیرند.

• شبکه‌هایی مقاوم در برابر سانسور: ارتباطاتی که دولت‌ها یا نهادها نتوانند آن‌ها را محدود کنند.

• زیرساخت‌های مقاوم در برابر بلایا: سامانه‌هایی که حتی در شرایط بحرانی همچنان فعال بمانند.

• آموزش دیجیتال همگانی: آموزش‌هایی که برای همه، در هر سطح و سن، قابل‌دسترس باشد.

• ارتباط با فضا و سیارات دیگر: فناوری‌هایی برای برقراری ارتباط بین زمین و نقاط دوردست فضایی.

این تکه‌ها خلأهایی‌اند که پر شدنشان می‌تواند کل تصویر را دگرگون کند.

---

تصویر نهایی: پازلی که هرگز کامل نمی‌شود؟

پازل فناوری، با سه دسته‌ی فعال، در حال توسعه و خالی، ساختاری پویاست. هر تکه‌ی تازه‌ای که افزوده می‌شود، ممکن است به تکه‌های دیگری نیاز پیدا کند. مثلاً فناوری پول دیجیتال، بحث‌هایی تازه درباره‌ی قوانین مالی یا امنیت دیجیتالی به دنبال آورده. یا رشد هوش رایانه‌ای، نیاز به بحث‌های اخلاقی را مطرح کرده است.

امروز، بخش بزرگی از پازل سر جایش قرار گرفته، اما آینده، پر از ناشناخته‌هاست. از رایانه‌های کوانتومی گرفته تا خودروهای بدون راننده، از خلأهای دسترسی برابر تا دغدغه‌های امنیتی، همگی ما را به تفکر، تلاش و انتخاب‌هایی مهم فرا می‌خوانند.

شما چه فکر می‌کنید؟\ کدام تکه از این پازل از دید شما مهم‌تر است؟\ فکر می‌کنید چه چیزی هنوز از قلم افتاده؟\ نظرات خودتان را بنویسید تا این پازل را با هم کامل‌تر کنیم.

منابع

1. Simplilearn. 25 New Technology Trends for 2025: An overview of emerging technology trends in 2025.

2. GeeksforGeeks. Top 25 New Technology Trends in 2025: In-depth analysis of developing technologies.

3. Forbes. Top 10 Technology Trends For 2025: Key trend predictions by Forbes experts.

4. NKTelco. Internet Trends to Watch in 2025: A look at the future of internet and connectivity.

5. Exploding Topics. 13 Top Technology Trends (2024 & 2025): Examination of hot and upcoming tech topics.

6. IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA). Six Connectivity and Telecom Trends to Watch for in 2025: A technical report on connectivity and telecommunications.

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Pisa, in Tuscany, is world-famous for its iconic Leaning Tower, but this riverside city offers much more than a fun photo op. With Romanesque architecture, student energy (thanks to its prestigious university), and charming piazzas, Pisa makes a great day trip—or a surprisingly rewarding overnight stay.

🌟 Must-See in Pisa

1️⃣ The Leaning Tower of Pisa (Torre Pendente)

• Built in the 12th century and leaning ever since due to soft soil
• Climb the spiral staircase (about 300 steps) for sweeping views of the city
• Best photo time? Early morning or golden hour for softer light

2️⃣ Piazza dei Miracoli (Square of Miracles)

• A UNESCO World Heritage Site and home to:
• The Cathedral (Duomo di Pisa) – Beautiful Romanesque façade
• The Baptistery – The largest in Italy, with amazing acoustics
• The Camposanto Monumentale – A peaceful cemetery with frescoes and ancient tombs

3️⃣ Walk Along the Arno River

• Quiet and atmospheric, especially at sunset
• Great way to escape the crowds around the tower and see the colorful riverside buildings

4️⃣ Explore the Historic Center

• Visit Piazza dei Cavalieri, once the political heart of Pisa
• Check out Scuola Normale Superiore, one of Italy’s most elite universities
• Wander through narrow medieval streets lined with shops and cafés

🍕 What to Eat in Pisa

• Cecina – A savory chickpea pancake, usually eaten as street food
• Torta co’ bischeri – A traditional chocolate and rice tart
• Pisan-style pasta with gamey meats or wild boar ragù
• Pair with local wines from the Colline Pisane

🎯 Quick Tips for Visiting

✅ Pisa is very walkable—comfortable shoes are your best friend
✅ The Leaning Tower is popular—book climb tickets online in advance
✅ It’s an easy day trip from Florence or Lucca by train (about 1 hour)
✅ Stay for the evening to enjoy Pisa’s local vibe once day-trippers leave

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

In a revealing development that exposes the hypocrisy of government surveillance, multiple federal agencies including the CIA and FBI have filed lawsuits to keep Samourai Wallet's client list sealed during and after trial proceedings. This move strongly suggests that government agencies themselves were utilizing Samourai's privacy-focused services while simultaneously condemning similar privacy tools when used by ordinary citizens.

The situation bears striking parallels to other cases where government agencies have hidden behind "national security" claims, such as the Jeffrey Epstein case, highlighting a troubling double standard: while average citizens are expected to surrender their financial privacy through extensive reporting requirements and regulations, government agencies claim exemption from these same transparency standards they enforce on others.

This case exemplifies the fundamental conflict between individual liberty and state power, where government agencies appear to be using the very privacy tools they prosecute others for using. The irony is particularly stark given that money laundering for intelligence agencies is considered legal in our system, while private citizens seeking financial privacy face severe legal consequences - a clear demonstration of how the state creates different rules for itself versus the people it claims to serve.

Citations: [1] https://www.bugle.news/cia-fbi-dnc-rnc-all-sue-to-redact-samourais-client-list-from-trial/

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Heute möchte ich ein Gedicht mit euch teilen. Es handelt sich um eine Ballade des österreichischen Lyrikers Johann Gabriel Seidl aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Mir sind diese Worte fest in Erinnerung, da meine Mutter sie perfekt rezitieren konnte, auch als die Kräfte schon langsam schwanden.

Dem originalen Titel «Die Uhr» habe ich für mich immer das Wort «innere» hinzugefügt. Denn der Zeitmesser – hier vermutliche eine Taschenuhr – symbolisiert zwar in dem Kontext das damalige Zeitempfinden und die Umbrüche durch die industrielle Revolution, sozusagen den Zeitgeist und das moderne Leben. Aber der Autor setzt sich philosophisch mit der Zeit auseinander und gibt seinem Werk auch eine klar spirituelle Dimension.

Das Ticken der Uhr und die Momente des Glücks und der Trauer stehen sinnbildlich für das unaufhaltsame Fortschreiten und die Vergänglichkeit des Lebens. Insofern könnte man bei der Uhr auch an eine Sonnenuhr denken. Der Rhythmus der Ereignisse passt uns vielleicht nicht immer in den Kram.

Was den Takt pocht, ist durchaus auch das Herz, unser «inneres Uhrwerk». Wenn dieses Meisterwerk einmal stillsteht, ist es unweigerlich um uns geschehen. Hoffentlich können wir dann dankbar sagen: «Ich habe mein Bestes gegeben.»

Ich trage, wo ich gehe, stets eine Uhr bei mir; \ Wieviel es geschlagen habe, genau seh ich an ihr. \ Es ist ein großer Meister, der künstlich ihr Werk gefügt, \ Wenngleich ihr Gang nicht immer dem törichten Wunsche genügt.

Ich wollte, sie wäre rascher gegangen an manchem Tag; \ Ich wollte, sie hätte manchmal verzögert den raschen Schlag. \ In meinen Leiden und Freuden, in Sturm und in der Ruh, \ Was immer geschah im Leben, sie pochte den Takt dazu.

Sie schlug am Sarge des Vaters, sie schlug an des Freundes Bahr, \ Sie schlug am Morgen der Liebe, sie schlug am Traualtar. \ Sie schlug an der Wiege des Kindes, sie schlägt, will's Gott, noch oft, \ Wenn bessere Tage kommen, wie meine Seele es hofft.

Und ward sie auch einmal träger, und drohte zu stocken ihr Lauf, \ So zog der Meister immer großmütig sie wieder auf. \ Doch stände sie einmal stille, dann wär's um sie geschehn, \ Kein andrer, als der sie fügte, bringt die Zerstörte zum Gehn.

Dann müßt ich zum Meister wandern, der wohnt am Ende wohl weit, \ Wohl draußen, jenseits der Erde, wohl dort in der Ewigkeit! \ Dann gäb ich sie ihm zurücke mit dankbar kindlichem Flehn: \ Sieh, Herr, ich hab nichts verdorben, sie blieb von selber stehn.

Johann Gabriel Seidl (1804-1875)

@ 4898fe02:4ae46cb0

Directory

📖 Day 1 - In the Beginning, an Idea...\ 📖 Day 2 - When Money Dies\ 📖 Day 3 - One Coin to Rule them All\ 📖 Day 4 - Transacting Adversarially pt. 1\ 📖 Day 5 - Transacting Adversarially pt. 2\ 📖 Day 6 - Not your Keys not your Coin\ 📖 Day 7 - The Seventh Day

---

Foreword

This is more than a curated list of articles.

This is more than a guide.

It is not a how-to or tutorial.

This is the first unschooled course syllabus and it is based entirely on the peer-reviewed work published by Stackers.

In undertaking such work as building a beginners course in bitcoin, one might stop and appreciate the plethora of other Bitcoin courses that live in the blogs of various company sites, such as those you will find on exchanges, wallet providers and the like. These are great, but the spirit of Bitcoin is in its community, so why not learn from the community directly?

Course Intro

What you will find below is a selection of some of the best that has been written by the thriving community on Stacker News. It is being referred to here as a course syllabus for the reason that it is intended to be used as a guide that you can follow as you take your first steps into the rabbit hole. Exploring new spaces online, especially those surrounding Bitcoin, can be intimidating and anxiety inducing, so rest easy and let this syllabus be your guide.

Included are a carefully selected list articles, spread across seven days of learning. Each day also has included the learning outcomes for that day and post-reading reflections.

It is recommended you come ready to learn, with a note-taking implement/software and an open mind. Feel free to share your responses to the questions in the comments. The discussion questions are obviously optional, but have been written with the purpose of prompting further engagement in the materials.

Target Audience

This particular Unschooled course is geared toward the intellectually curious and self-directed (much like later iterations will be).

No prior knowledge of Bitcoin is required as the course has been designed to suit the absolute bitcoin initiate.

Expected outcomes

By the end of the seven-days, learners will have

• developed an awareness of peer to peer electronic cash
• engaged some of the philosophical currents in the Bitcoin community
• analyzed the quesiton: why Bitcoin not crypto?
• reflected on the important concepts in Bitcoin such as wallets, UTXO's, Nodes and Lightning Network
• answered the question: what is KYC and AML?
• seen the relevance of the phrase "not your keys, not your bitcoin"

A Final note by way of Introduction

The course is designed to familiarize you with the technology that you will ultimately use to interact with the Bitcoin network, not to give investment advice. It is recommended that you finish the course before making any financial decisions, as there is important insight to be gained in all seven days.

Lastly, nothing stated herein is intended as financial advice.

Let's begin!

⚡️Go to Day 1⚡️

---

@ c3e23eb5:03d7caa9

The issue I have with the term "mesh networks" is that it is associated with a flat network topology. While I love the idea of avoiding hierarchy, this simply doesn't scale.

Data Plane: How the Internet Scales

The internet on the scales because it has a tree like structure. As you can see in the diagram below, global (tier 1) ISPs branch out to national (tier 2) ISPs who in turn branch out to local (tier 3) ISPs. ``` ,-[ Tier 1 ISP (Global) ]─-───────[ Tier 1 ISP (Global) ] / |
/ ▼
[IXP (Global)]═══╦═══[IXP (Global)]
║
Tier 2 ISP (National)◄──────────╗
/ \ ║
▼ ▼ ║
[IXP (Regional)]════╬══[IXP (Regional)] ║
/ \ ║
▼ ▼ ║
Tier 3 ISP (Local) Tier 3 ISP (Local) ║
| | ║
▼ ▼ ▼
[User] [User] [Enterprise]

▲ IXPs are physical switch fabrics - members peer directly ▲ Tier 1/2 ISPs provide transit through IXPs but don't control them ```

This structure also reflects in IP addresses, where regional traffic gets routed by regional tiers and global traffic keeps getting passed up through gateways till it reaches the root of the tree. The global ISP then routes the traffic into the correct branch so that it can trickle down to the destination IP at the bottom. 12.0.0.0/8 - Tier 1 manages routing (IANA-allocated) └─12.34.0.0/16 - Tier 2 allocated block (through RIR) └─12.34.56.0/24 - Tier 3 subnet via upstream provider ├─12.34.56.1 Public IP (CGNAT pool) └─192.168.1.1 Private IP (local NAT reuse)

Balancing idealism with pragmatism

This approach to scaling is much less idealistic than a flat hierarchy, because it relies on an authority (IANA) to assign the IP ranges to ISPs through Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Even if this authority wasn't required, the fact that many users rely on few Tier 1 ISPs means that the system is inherently susceptible to sabotage (see 2019 BGP leak incident).

Control Plane: the internet is still described as decentralised

The internet is still described as decentralised because there is a flat hierarchy between tier 1 ISPs at the root of the tree. ``` INTERNET CORE (Tier 1 ISPs)

---

AT&T (AS7018) <══════════> Deutsche Telekom (AS3320) ║ ╔════════════════════╗ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ╚══>║ NTT (AS2914) ║<══╝ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ╚═══════> Lumen (AS3356) ║ ║ ╚════╩════════════> Telia (AS1299) ```

The border gateway protocol (BGP) is used to exchange routing information between autonomous systems (ISPs). Each autonomous system is a branch of the "internet tree" and each autonomous system advertises routes to downstream autonomous systems (branches). However, the autonomous systems at the root of the tree also maintain a record of their piers, so that they can forward traffic to the correct peer. Hence, the following is a more complete diagram of the internet: INTERNET CORE (TIER 1 MESH) ╔══════════════╦═════════════╦════════╦═════════════╗ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ AT&T (AS7018) <══╬══> Lumen (AS3356) <══╬══> NTT (AS2914) ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ╚══> Telia (AS1299) <══╝ ║ ║ ╚═══════════════════════════════╝ ║ ║ ╚═> Deutsche Telekom (AS3320) <═╝ ║ TREE HIERARCHY BELOW - MESH ABOVE ║ ▼ [ Tier 1 ISP ]───────────────────┐ / | | / ▼ ▼ [IXP]═══╦═══[IXP] [IXP] ║ ║ ▼ ▼ Tier 2 ISP◄──────────╗ Tier 2 ISP◄───────╗ / \ ║ / \ ║ ▼ ▼ ║ ▼ ▼ ║ [IXP]═╦[IXP] ║ [IXP]═╦[IXP] ║ / \ ║ / \ ║ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ Tier 3 ISP User Tier 3 ISP Enterprise

So its a mesh network - whats wrong with that?

In the example above, NTT can only send traffic to Deutsche Telekom via Lumen or AT&T. NTT relies on its peers to maintain a correct record of the IP range that they are responsible for, so that traffic that was intended for Deutsche Telekom doesn't end up in the wrong network. An intentional or even accidental error in an autonomous system's routing tables can be detrimental to the flow of traffic through the network.

Hence, mesh networks require: * Reliability: peers rely on each-other not to fail (e.g., 2019 AWS US-East-1 availability) * Trust: peers must be honest about address ranges (e.g., 2018 BGP hijacking incident) * Central planning: BGP traffic engineering determines which route a packet takes

Application Layer Innovations

Now that we have a rough overview of how the internet is broken, lets think about what can still be done. The flat hierarchy that we associate with mesh networks sounds beautiful, but it doesn't scale. However, the tree-like structure assumes that most participants in the network rely on an authority to give them an address or a range of addresses so that they can communicate.

Overlay networks

Fortunately all it takes to interact with someone on nostr is their public key. The recipients client will render your signed and/or encrypted event no matter how it reaches them. Whether your note reaches them over the internet, over some other network or via a carrier pigeon doesn't matter. nostr:npub1hw6amg8p24ne08c9gdq8hhpqx0t0pwanpae9z25crn7m9uy7yarse465gr is working on a NIP for that and I'm sure he will share an explanation of how it works.

Bitcoin Instead of a Routing Algorithm

Now that we have digital bearer assets (e-cash), users can pay their internet gateway (TollGate) for access to the internet even though they are still offline. Once the TollGate has redeemed the e-cash, it gives the user access to the internet.

Frictionless Switching between ISPs (TollGates)

Legacy internet service providers use KYC money (fiat) to transfer the cost of the infrastructure to their users. However, this means that they are able to identify which packet belongs to which user. The KYC nature of their interaction with the users also makes it difficult for users to switch ISPs when service providers undercut each-other. Internet users who are on e-cash rails can hop between ISPs frictionlessly since they buy small amounts of data frequently in a granular manner.

Users that have access to independent competing TollGates can switch between them freely, so its impossible for any one TollGate to prevent a user from connecting to the internet. The only thing a TollGate can do is attract traffic by providing cheaper and/or faster internet access.

Anyone can arbitrage connectivity

Now that users have non KYC internet, there is nothing stopping them from reselling access to their internet connection. Anyone who has a WiFi router and access to a cheap internet connection can act as a range extender by re-selling access to that gateway for people who aren't able to connect directly.

Now the route that the traffic takes through the network is determined dynamically by the markets. The individual TollGate operators select their gateways and set their prices when they create a business model. The customers select the route that best meets their needs by selecting a gateway for their next purchase.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

"Malcolm Forbes recounts that a lady, wearing a faded cotton dress, and her husband, dressed in an old handmade suit, stepped off a train in Boston, USA, and timidly made their way to the office of the president of Harvard University. They had come from Palo Alto, California, and had not scheduled an appointment. The secretary, at a glance, thought that those two, looking like country bumpkins, had no business at Harvard.
— We want to speak with the president — the man said in a low voice.
— He will be busy all day — the secretary replied curtly.
— We will wait.
The secretary ignored them for hours, hoping the couple would finally give up and leave. But they stayed there, and the secretary, somewhat frustrated, decided to bother the president, although she hated doing that.
— If you speak with them for just a few minutes, maybe they will decide to go away — she said.
The president sighed in irritation but agreed. Someone of his importance did not have time to meet people like that, but he hated faded dresses and tattered suits in his office. With a stern face, he went to the couple.
— We had a son who studied at Harvard for a year — the woman said. — He loved Harvard and was very happy here, but a year ago he died in an accident, and we would like to erect a monument in his honor somewhere on campus.

— My lady — said the president rudely —, we cannot erect a statue for every person who studied at Harvard and died; if we did, this place would look like a cemetery.

— Oh, no — the lady quickly replied. — We do not want to erect a statue. We would like to donate a building to Harvard.

The president looked at the woman's faded dress and her husband's old suit and exclaimed:

— A building! Do you have even the faintest idea of how much a building costs? We have more than seven and a half million dollars' worth of buildings here at Harvard.

The lady was silent for a moment, then said to her husband:

— If that’s all it costs to found a university, why don’t we have our own?

The husband agreed.

The couple, Leland Stanford, stood up and left, leaving the president confused. Traveling back to Palo Alto, California, they established there Stanford University, the second-largest in the world, in honor of their son, a former Harvard student."

Text extracted from: "Mileumlivros - Stories that Teach Values."

Thank you for reading, my friend! If this message helped you in any way, consider leaving your glass “🥃” as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 73dc15e0:b7a84244

プロローグ

童貞こと薄（すすき）　仙人（せんにん）29歳。ここに眠る。「RIP」。29年間ずっと不運だった。親が仙人なんて名前を付けるから。学校では薄い仙人で「はげ仙人」なんてよばれるし、会社は倒産し、家は燃え、さっきトラックで引かれたところだ。そして、今「自称邪心」に次の魔王になってほしいと頼まれている。

―「なんで俺がそんなことしなきゃいけないのだ。」

「君には普通の人間よりも欲が何倍も大きい。ほんとは君の世界では収まらないぐらいだよ。」

―「異世界に行くのはいいとして、なんで魔王なんだ？」

「一つは、さっきも言った通り、君の欲は大きい。二つ目はもうすぐ現魔王がいなくなるからだよ。」

―「勇者にでも殺されたか？」

「いや、勇者と魔王が結婚した。」

―「は？」意味がわからない。勇者は魔王を倒すものではないのか？

「いなくなるというよりは魔王をやめるという表現のほうが正しかったかな。」

邪神によると勇者と魔王が結婚し、現魔王は魔王をやめるので、勇者と魔王の子供に転生し、次の新たな魔王になってほしいとのことだった。

人族と魔族（エルフ、ドワーフ、悪魔など）がこの世界にはあり、人族は聖神、魔族は

邪神が保護しているそうで、人と魔族は大昔から敵対しているそうだ。

聖神は魔族を忌み嫌っているので、魔族を統べる物がいなくなればいつ人族が襲ってくるかわからない。

人族には個別スキル（怪力、俊足など）には一般スキルと固有スキルがある。

固有スキルは世界に一人しかもっておらず、使用者が死ぬと新しく生まれてきた誰かがその固有スキルを手にする。固有スキルは5000万人に１人ぐらいの割合だそうだ。

一般スキルは固有スキルと違い、スキルがかぶることはよくあるそうだ。

魔族は種族スキルがある。種族スキルとはその種族が全員同じスキルをもっている。

魔族は固有スキルや個別スキルがない代わり人よりも各ステータスが高い。

俺は邪神に恩恵を3つもらった。一つは「超再生」。これは怪我や魔力、体力を瞬時に再生させてくれるチート能力だ。2つ目は「代償」腕や心臓などの代償をつくることによって自分を強化したり、新しく武器を作ることができる。この能力は一つ目の「超再生」と組み合わせることでバグをうみだすことができる。3つ目は「入れ替え」これは、さわったことのある物や人との場所を入れ替えることができる。

この三つの恩恵で異世界を俺は生き抜いてやる。

@ b8af284d:f82c91dd

"Auf den deutschen Konten, Sparkonten und laufenden Girokonten liegen 2,8 Billionen Euro. Stellen Sie sich einen kurzen Augenblick vor, wir wären in der Lage, davon nur 10 Prozent zu mobilisieren – mit einem vernünftigen Zinssatz, für die öffentliche Infrastruktur in Deutschland […]”

Friedrich Merz, Blackrock-Aufsichtsratvorsitzender 2016-2020

„Governments can’t fund infrastructure through deficits. The deficits can’t get much higher. Instead, they’ll turn to private investors.“

Larry Fink, CEO Blackrock

Liebe Abonnenten,

im Jahr 1999 lag der durchschnittliche Bruttolohn eines deutschen Arbeiters bei monatlich 2100 Euro. 26 Jahre später sind es etwa 4200 Euro. In diesem Zeitraum sind die Löhne also durchschnittlich jedes Jahr um 2,7 Prozent gewachsen. (Um die Reallöhne, also die tatsächliche inflationsbereinigte Kaufkraft soll es ausnahmsweise einmal nicht gehen.)

Im selben Zeitraum ist die globale Wirtschaftsleistung um fünf Prozent im Jahr gewachsen. Der amerikanische Aktien-Index S\&P500 legte durchschnittlich jedes Jahr um acht Prozent zu.

Die Unterschiede klingen zunächst gering. 2,7 Prozent, 5 Prozent, 8 Prozent - Peanuts, was soll’s? Deutlich werden die Bedeutung dieser Zahlen, wenn man sie in absolute Zahlen umlegt. Bei einem Zuwachs von durchschnittlich fünf Prozent würde selbiger Arbeiter heute 7560 Euro verdienen. Wäre sein Lohn so stark gestiegen wie der S\&P500, läge er bei 15.483 Euro.

Das Unternehmen Blackrock ging im Jahr 1999 an die Börse. Die jährlichen Kurssteigerungen der Aktie liegen durchschnittlich bei 21 Prozent. Aus den 2100 Euro wären damit 334.661 Euro geworden.

Nimmt man nur den Gewinn des Unternehmens, landet man bei etwa zehn Prozent Rendite nach Steuern.

Irgendwie also wächst der Finanzmarkt schneller als Löhne, und Blackrock wächst nochmals schneller als der Finanzmarkt. Wie kann das sein? Was macht Blackrock, für die bis vor wenigen Jahren der künftige Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz tätig war?

Ein Blackrock-Deepdive:

Blackrock - the bright side

1988 gründete Larry Fink zusammen mit einer Gruppe von Mitarbeitern “Blackstone Financial Management”. Die Firma wurde 1992 in Blackrock umbenannt und ging 1999 an die Börse. Zehn Jahre später übernahm die Firma Barclays Global Investors (BGI). Letztere brachte die Marke „ishares“ mit ins Portfolio. Zum Kerngeschäft von Blackrock gehören seitdem ETFs - die vielleicht beliebteste Anlageklasse der Welt.

ETFs sind keine Erfindung von Blackrock, aber das Unternehmen hat viel dazu beigetragen, dass ETFs heute in fast jedem Portfolio zu finden sind. Bevor es ETFs gab, konnten Kleinanleger fast nur in aktiv gemanagte Fonds investieren. Dabei kaufen und verkaufen hochbezahlte Analysten Aktien und verlangen dafür eine Gebühr von zwei Prozent. Bei ETFs liegen diese im Promillebereich. Eine Gebühr von zwei Prozent mag vernachlässigbar klingen. Über die Jahre aber macht dies einen Riesenunterschied - wie das Beispiel des Bruttolohns zeigt.

Hinzu kommt: Statistisch laufen passive Indexfonds oft besser als aktiv geleitete Investmentfonds.

Blackrock ist es mit seinen ETFs gelungen, die Geldanlage zu demokratisieren. Das Unternehmen profitiert nicht von steigenden Kursen der Aktien, sondern kassiert minimale Gebühren beim Kauf und Verkauf - aber bei einem verwalteten Vermögen von 4,5 Billionen Dollar kommt eben schnell etwas zusammen. 1989 hatten nur rund 30 Prozent der Amerikaner Aktien, heute sind es über 60 Prozent. In Deutschland liegt der Anteil bei nur 15 Prozent.

Niemand muss mehr um Lohnerhöhungen bangen - er kann von der annualisierten Wachstumsrate von acht Prozent (S\&P500) profitieren, wenn er jeden Monat in Blackrock-ETFs investiert. Selber Schuld, wer nicht!

Blackrock - the dark side

Wer die letzten Jahre nicht völlig außerhalb des Schwurbelversums verbracht hat, wird mitbekommen haben, dass Blackrock Thema zahlreicher Verschwörungstheorien ist. Von Covid über die Rüstungsindustrie bis zum Wiederaufbau der Ukraine. ETFs sind tatsächlich nicht das einzige Geschäftsmodell. Hinzu kommt eine weniger transparente Vermögensverwaltung von rund sieben Billionen Dollar. Kunden sind neben Unternehmen und Familien auch ganze Staaten. Außerdem ist Blackrock Großaktionär bei tausenden von Unternehmen. Es hält große Anteile von Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia aber auch von Vonovia, Bayer und der Deutschen Bank. Und über diese Beteiligungen übt das Unternehmen Macht aus. Das bekannteste Beispiel sind ESG-Kriterien (Environmental, Social, Governance), die Larry Fink ab 2018 propagierte. Mittlerweile ist Fink davon abgerückt, im aktuellen Jahresbrief ist davon wenig zu lesen. Das eigentliche Problem sitzt tiefer, und hat mit der Rendite zu tun.

Mehr zum Thema: Panzer statt Autos - Wie Deutschland in die Kriegswirtschaft schlittert, und dabei seine Freiheit und Wohlstand aufs Spiel setzt.

Was hat Blackrock vor?

Zehn oder 20 Prozent Wachstum sind über einen langen Zeitraum kaum realistisch zu erwirtschaften. Dafür braucht es „Megatrends“. Künstliche Intelligenz zum Beispiel verspricht Produktivitätsgewinne, die weitaus über der Norm liegen. Was aber, wenn diese ausbleiben? Lässt sich eventuell etwas nachhelfen?

Am bequemsten ist es, wenn Regierungen Steuergelder in Richtung Unternehmen verschieben. Dann sparen sich die Profiteure auch noch die Werbekosten. Was, wenn eine Regierung ein großes Investitionsprogramm auflegt, von dem dann Unternehmen profitieren, in die Blackrock frühzeitig investiert hat? Was, wenn mehrere Regierungen dies gleichzeitig tun? Nun kann man sich fragen, bei welchen Komplexen dies zuletzt der Fall war. Blackrock hält ungefähr sieben Prozent der Pfizer-Aktien und rund ein Prozent von Biontech. Etwa fünf Prozent von Rheinmetall-Aktien sind…

Weiter geht es auf BlingBling - dem wöchentlichen Newsletter über Geld, Geopolitik und Bitcoin

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

A new talking point of the left is that it’s no big deal, just simple recording errors for the 20 million people aged 100-360. 🤷‍♀️ And not many of them are collecting benefits anyway. 👌 First of all, the investigation & analysis are in the early stages. How can they possibly know how deep the fraud goes, especially when their leaders are doing everything they can to obstruct any real examination? Second, sure, no worries about only a small number collecting benefits. That’s the ONLY thing social security numbers are used for. 🙄

@ ec9bd746:df11a9d0

🌍 Time Window:

🕘 When: Every even week on Sunday at 9:00 PM CET
🗺️ Where: https://cornychat.com/eurocorn

Start: 21:00 CET (Prague, UTC+1)
End: approx. 02:00 CET (Prague, UTC+1, next day)
Duration: usually 5+ hours.

| Region | Local Time Window | Convenience Level | |-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | Europe (CET, Prague) 🇨🇿🇩🇪 | 21:00–02:00 CET | ✅ Very Good; evening & night | | East Coast North America (EST) 🇺🇸🇨🇦 | 15:00–20:00 EST | ✅ Very Good; afternoon & early evening | | West Coast North America (PST) 🇺🇸🇨🇦 | 12:00–17:00 PST | ✅ Very Good; midday & afternoon | | Central America (CST) 🇲🇽🇨🇷🇬🇹 | 14:00–19:00 CST | ✅ Very Good; afternoon & evening | | South America West (Peru/Colombia PET/COT) 🇵🇪🇨🇴 | 15:00–20:00 PET/COT | ✅ Very Good; afternoon & evening | | South America East (Brazil/Argentina/Chile, BRT/ART/CLST) 🇧🇷🇦🇷🇨🇱 | 17:00–22:00 BRT/ART/CLST | ✅ Very Good; early evening | | United Kingdom/Ireland (GMT) 🇬🇧🇮🇪 | 20:00–01:00 GMT | ✅ Very Good; evening hours (midnight convenient) | | Eastern Europe (EET) 🇷🇴🇬🇷🇺🇦 | 22:00–03:00 EET | ✅ Good; late evening & early night (slightly late) | | Africa (South Africa, SAST) 🇿🇦 | 22:00–03:00 SAST | ✅ Good; late evening & overnight (late-night common) | | New Zealand (NZDT) 🇳🇿 | 09:00–14:00 NZDT (next day) | ✅ Good; weekday morning & afternoon | | Australia (AEDT, Sydney) 🇦🇺 | 07:00–12:00 AEDT (next day) | ✅ Good; weekday morning to noon | | East Africa (Kenya, EAT) 🇰🇪 | 23:00–04:00 EAT | ⚠️ Slightly late (night hours; late night common) | | Russia (Moscow, MSK) 🇷🇺 | 23:00–04:00 MSK | ⚠️ Slightly late (join at start is fine, very late night) | | Middle East (UAE, GST) 🇦🇪🇴🇲 | 00:00–05:00 GST (next day) | ⚠️ Late night start (midnight & early morning, but shorter attendance plausible)| | Japan/Korea (JST/KST) 🇯🇵🇰🇷 | 05:00–10:00 JST/KST (next day) | ⚠️ Early; convenient joining from ~07:00 onwards possible | | China (Beijing, CST) 🇨🇳 | 04:00–09:00 CST (next day) | ❌ Challenging; very early morning start (better ~07:00 onwards) | | India (IST) 🇮🇳 | 01:30–06:30 IST (next day) | ❌ Very challenging; overnight timing typically difficult|

---

@ 94a6a78a:0ddf320e

Nostr is a revolutionary protocol that enables decentralized, censorship-resistant communication. Unlike traditional social networks controlled by corporations, Nostr operates without central servers or gatekeepers. This openness makes it incredibly powerful—but also means its success depends entirely on users, developers, and relay operators.

If you believe in free speech, decentralization, and an open internet, there are many ways to support and strengthen the Nostr ecosystem. Whether you're a casual user, a developer, or someone looking to contribute financially, every effort helps build a more robust network.

Here’s how you can get involved and make a difference.

---

1️⃣ Use Nostr Daily

The simplest and most effective way to contribute to Nostr is by using it regularly. The more active users, the stronger and more valuable the network becomes.

✅ Post, comment, and zap (send micro-payments via Bitcoin’s Lightning Network) to keep conversations flowing.\ ✅ Engage with new users and help them understand how Nostr works.\ ✅ Try different Nostr clients like Damus, Amethyst, Snort, or Primal and provide feedback to improve the experience.

Your activity keeps the network alive and helps encourage more developers and relay operators to invest in the ecosystem.

---

2️⃣ Run Your Own Nostr Relay

Relays are the backbone of Nostr, responsible for distributing messages across the network. The more independent relays exist, the stronger and more censorship-resistant Nostr becomes.

✅ Set up your own relay to help decentralize the network further.\ ✅ Experiment with relay configurations and different performance optimizations.\ ✅ Offer public or private relay services to users looking for high-quality infrastructure.

If you're not technical, you can still support relay operators by subscribing to a paid relay or donating to open-source relay projects.

---

3️⃣ Support Paid Relays & Infrastructure

Free relays have helped Nostr grow, but they struggle with spam, slow speeds, and sustainability issues. Paid relays help fund better infrastructure, faster message delivery, and a more reliable experience.

✅ Subscribe to a paid relay to help keep it running.\ ✅ Use premium services like media hosting (e.g., Azzamo Blossom) to decentralize content storage.\ ✅ Donate to relay operators who invest in long-term infrastructure.

By funding Nostr’s decentralized backbone, you help ensure its longevity and reliability.

---

4️⃣ Zap Developers, Creators & Builders

Many people contribute to Nostr without direct financial compensation—developers who build clients, relay operators, educators, and content creators. You can support them with zaps! ⚡

✅ Find developers working on Nostr projects and send them a zap.\ ✅ Support content creators and educators who spread awareness about Nostr.\ ✅ Encourage builders by donating to open-source projects.

Micro-payments via the Lightning Network make it easy to directly support the people who make Nostr better.

---

5️⃣ Develop New Nostr Apps & Tools

If you're a developer, you can build on Nostr’s open protocol to create new apps, bots, or tools. Nostr is permissionless, meaning anyone can develop for it.

✅ Create new Nostr clients with unique features and user experiences.\ ✅ Build bots or automation tools that improve engagement and usability.\ ✅ Experiment with decentralized identity, authentication, and encryption to make Nostr even stronger.

With no corporate gatekeepers, your projects can help shape the future of decentralized social media.

---

6️⃣ Promote & Educate Others About Nostr

Adoption grows when more people understand and use Nostr. You can help by spreading awareness and creating educational content.

✅ Write blogs, guides, and tutorials explaining how to use Nostr.\ ✅ Make videos or social media posts introducing new users to the protocol.\ ✅ Host discussions, Twitter Spaces, or workshops to onboard more people.

The more people understand and trust Nostr, the stronger the ecosystem becomes.

---

7️⃣ Support Open-Source Nostr Projects

Many Nostr tools and clients are built by volunteers, and open-source projects thrive on community support.

✅ Contribute code to existing Nostr projects on GitHub.\ ✅ Report bugs and suggest features to improve Nostr clients.\ ✅ Donate to developers who keep Nostr free and open for everyone.

If you're not a developer, you can still help with testing, translations, and documentation to make projects more accessible.

---

🚀 Every Contribution Strengthens Nostr

Whether you:

✔️ Post and engage daily\ ✔️ Zap creators and developers\ ✔️ Run or support relays\ ✔️ Build new apps and tools\ ✔️ Educate and onboard new users

Every action helps make Nostr more resilient, decentralized, and unstoppable.

Nostr isn’t just another social network—it’s a movement toward a free and open internet. If you believe in digital freedom, privacy, and decentralization, now is the time to get involved.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Falls du beim Lesen des Titels dieses Newsletters unwillkürlich an positive Neuigkeiten aus dem globalen polit-medialen Irrenhaus oder gar aus dem wirtschaftlichen Umfeld gedacht hast, darf ich dich beglückwünschen. Diese Assoziation ist sehr löblich, denn sie weist dich als unverbesserlichen Optimisten aus. Leider muss ich dich diesbezüglich aber enttäuschen. Es geht hier um ein anderes Thema, allerdings sehr wohl ein positives, wie ich finde.

Heute ist ein ganz besonderer Tag: die Wintersonnenwende. Genau gesagt hat heute morgen um 10:20 Uhr Mitteleuropäischer Zeit (MEZ) auf der Nordhalbkugel unseres Planeten der astronomische Winter begonnen. Was daran so außergewöhnlich ist? Der kürzeste Tag des Jahres war gestern, seit heute werden die Tage bereits wieder länger! Wir werden also jetzt jeden Tag ein wenig mehr Licht haben.

Für mich ist dieses Ereignis immer wieder etwas kurios: Es beginnt der Winter, aber die Tage werden länger. Das erscheint mir zunächst wie ein Widerspruch, denn meine spontanen Assoziationen zum Winter sind doch eher Kälte und Dunkelheit, relativ zumindest. Umso erfreulicher ist der emotionale Effekt, wenn dann langsam die Erkenntnis durchsickert: Ab jetzt wird es schon wieder heller!

Natürlich ist es kalt im Winter, mancherorts mehr als anderswo. Vielleicht jedoch nicht mehr lange, wenn man den Klimahysterikern glauben wollte. Mindestens letztes Jahr hat Väterchen Frost allerdings gleich zu Beginn seiner Saison – und passenderweise während des globalen Überhitzungsgipfels in Dubai – nochmal richtig mit der Faust auf den Tisch gehauen. Schnee- und Eischaos sind ja eigentlich in der Agenda bereits nicht mehr vorgesehen. Deswegen war man in Deutschland vermutlich in vorauseilendem Gehorsam schon nicht mehr darauf vorbereitet und wurde glatt lahmgelegt.

Aber ich schweife ab. Die Aussicht auf nach und nach mehr Licht und damit auch Wärme stimmt mich froh. Den Zusammenhang zwischen beidem merkt man in Andalusien sehr deutlich. Hier, wo die Häuser im Winter arg auskühlen, geht man zum Aufwärmen raus auf die Straße oder auf den Balkon. Die Sonne hat auch im Winter eine erfreuliche Kraft. Und da ist jede Minute Gold wert.

Außerdem ist mir vor Jahren so richtig klar geworden, warum mir das südliche Klima so sehr gefällt. Das liegt nämlich nicht nur an der Sonne als solcher, oder der Wärme – das liegt vor allem am Licht. Ohne Licht keine Farben, das ist der ebenso simple wie gewaltige Unterschied zwischen einem deprimierenden matschgraubraunen Winter und einem fröhlichen bunten. Ein großes Stück Lebensqualität.

Mir gefällt aber auch die Symbolik dieses Tages: Licht aus der Dunkelheit, ein Wendepunkt, ein Neuanfang, neue Möglichkeiten, Übergang zu neuer Aktivität. In der winterlichen Stille keimt bereits neue Lebendigkeit. Und zwar in einem Zyklus, das wird immer wieder so geschehen. Ich nehme das gern als ein Stück Motivation, es macht mir Hoffnung und gibt mir Energie.

Übrigens ist parallel am heutigen Tag auf der südlichen Halbkugel Sommeranfang. Genau im entgegengesetzten Rhythmus, sich ergänzend, wie Yin und Yang. Das alles liegt an der Schrägstellung der Erdachse, die ist nämlich um 23,4º zur Umlaufbahn um die Sonne geneigt. Wir erinnern uns, gell?

Insofern bleibt eindeutig festzuhalten, dass “schräg sein” ein willkommener, wichtiger und positiver Wert ist. Mit anderen Worten: auch ungewöhnlich, eigenartig, untypisch, wunderlich, kauzig, … ja sogar irre, spinnert oder gar “quer” ist in Ordnung. Das schließt das Denken mit ein.

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch allen urige Weihnachtstage!

---

Dieser Beitrag ist letztes Jahr in meiner Denkbar erschienen.

@ f1e78daa:124e0e56

今日はテストです。

@ f1e78daa:124e0e56

プロローグ

童貞こと薄（すすき）　仙人（せんにん）29歳。ここに眠る。「RIP」。29年間ずっと不運だった。親が仙人なんて名前を付けるから。学校では薄い仙人で「はげ仙人」なんてよばれるし、会社は倒産し、家は燃え、さっきトラックで引かれたところだ。そして、今「自称邪心」に次の魔王になってほしいと頼まれている。

―「なんで俺がそんなことしなきゃいけないのだ。」

「君には普通の人間よりも欲が何倍も大きい。ほんとは君の世界では収まらないぐらいだよ。」

―「異世界に行くのはいいとして、なんで魔王なんだ？」

「一つは、さっきも言った通り、君の欲は大きい。二つ目はもうすぐ現魔王がいなくなるからだよ。」

―「勇者にでも殺されたか？」

「いや、勇者と魔王が結婚した。」

―「は？」意味がわからない。勇者は魔王を倒すものではないのか？

「いなくなるというよりは魔王をやめるという表現のほうが正しかったかな。」

邪神によると勇者と魔王が結婚し、現魔王は魔王をやめるので、勇者と魔王の子供に転生し、次の新たな魔王になってほしいとのことだった。

人族と魔族（エルフ、ドワーフ、悪魔など）がこの世界にはあり、人族は聖神、魔族は

邪神が保護しているそうで、人と魔族は大昔から敵対しているそうだ。

聖神は魔族を忌み嫌っているので、魔族を統べる物がいなくなればいつ人族が襲ってくるかわからない。

人族には個別スキル（怪力、俊足など）には一般スキルと固有スキルがある。

固有スキルは世界に一人しかもっておらず、使用者が死ぬと新しく生まれてきた誰かがその固有スキルを手にする。固有スキルは5000万人に１人ぐらいの割合だそうだ。

一般スキルは固有スキルと違い、スキルがかぶることはよくあるそうだ。

魔族は種族スキルがある。種族スキルとはその種族が全員同じスキルをもっている。

魔族は固有スキルや個別スキルがない代わり人よりも各ステータスが高い。

俺は邪神に恩恵を3つもらった。一つは「超再生」。これは怪我や魔力、体力を瞬時に再生させてくれるチート能力だ。2つ目は「代償」腕や心臓などの代償をつくることによって自分を強化したり、新しく武器を作ることができる。この能力は一つ目の「超再生」と組み合わせることでバグをうみだすことができる。3つ目は「入れ替え」これは、さわったことのある物や人との場所を入れ替えることができる。

この三つの恩恵で異世界を俺は生き抜いてやる。

@ deab79da:88579e68

The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five-dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way:

Alexander Adell and Bertram Lupov were two of the faithful attendants of Multivac. As well as any human beings could, they knew what lay behind the cold, clicking, flashing face -- miles and miles of face -- of that giant computer. They had at least a vague notion of the general plan of relays and circuits that had long since grown past the point where any single human could possibly have a firm grasp of the whole.

Multivac was self-adjusting and self-correcting. It had to be, for nothing human could adjust and correct it quickly enough or even adequately enough. So Adell and Lupov attended the monstrous giant only lightly and superficially, yet as well as any men could. They fed it data, adjusted questions to its needs and translated the answers that were issued. Certainly they, and all others like them, were fully entitled to share in the glory that was Multivac's.

For decades, Multivac had helped design the ships and plot the trajectories that enabled man to reach the Moon, Mars, and Venus, but past that, Earth's poor resources could not support the ships. Too much energy was needed for the long trips. Earth exploited its coal and uranium with increasing efficiency, but there was only so much of both.

But slowly Multivac learned enough to answer deeper questions more fundamentally, and on May 14, 2061, what had been theory, became fact.

The energy of the sun was stored, converted, and utilized directly on a planet-wide scale. All Earth turned off its burning coal, its fissioning uranium, and flipped the switch that connected all of it to a small station, one mile in diameter, circling the Earth at half the distance of the Moon. All Earth ran by invisible beams of sunpower.

Seven days had not sufficed to dim the glory of it and Adell and Lupov finally managed to escape from the public functions, and to meet in quiet where no one would think of looking for them, in the deserted underground chambers, where portions of the mighty buried body of Multivac showed. Unattended, idling, sorting data with contented lazy clickings, Multivac, too, had earned its vacation and the boys appreciated that. They had no intention, originally, of disturbing it.

They had brought a bottle with them, and their only concern at the moment was to relax in the company of each other and the bottle.

"It's amazing when you think of it," said Adell. His broad face had lines of weariness in it, and he stirred his drink slowly with a glass rod, watching the cubes of ice slur clumsily about. "All the energy we can possibly ever use for free. Enough energy, if we wanted to draw on it, to melt all Earth into a big drop of impure liquid iron, and still never miss the energy so used. All the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever."

Lupov cocked his head sideways. He had a trick of doing that when he wanted to be contrary, and he wanted to be contrary now, partly because he had had to carry the ice and glassware. "Not forever," he said.

"Oh, hell, just about forever. Till the sun runs down, Bert."

"That's not forever."

"All right, then. Billions and billions of years. Ten billion, maybe. Are you satisfied?"

Lupov put his fingers through his thinning hair as though to reassure himself that some was still left and sipped gently at his own drink. "Ten billion years isn't forever."

"Well, it will last our time, won't it?"

"So would the coal and uranium."

"All right, but now we can hook up each individual spaceship to the Solar Station, and it can go to Pluto and back a million times without ever worrying about fuel. You can't do that on coal and uranium. Ask Multivac, if you don't believe me.

"I don't have to ask Multivac. I know that."

"Then stop running down what Multivac's done for us," said Adell, blazing up, "It did all right."

"Who says it didn't? What I say is that a sun won't last forever. That's all I'm saying. We're safe for ten billion years, but then what?" Lupow pointed a slightly shaky finger at the other. "And don't say we'll switch to another sun."

There was silence for a while. Adell put his glass to his lips only occasionally, and Lupov's eyes slowly closed. They rested.

Then Lupov's eyes snapped open. "You're thinking we'll switch to another sun when ours is done, aren't you?"

"I'm not thinking."

"Sure you are. You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see, because he figured when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."

"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."

"Darn right they will," muttered Lupov. "It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was, and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down. Some run down faster than others. Hell, the giants won't last a hundred million years. The sun will last ten billion years and maybe the dwarfs will last two hundred billion for all the good they are. But just give us a trillion years and everything will be dark. Entropy has to increase to maximum, that's all."

"I know all about entropy," said Adell, standing on his dignity.

"The hell you do."

"I know as much as you do."

"Then you know everything's got to run down someday."

"All right. Who says they won't?"

"You did, you poor sap. You said we had all the energy we needed, forever. You said 'forever.'

It was Adell's turn to be contrary. "Maybe we can build things up again someday," he said.

"Never."

"Why not? Someday."

"Never."

"Ask Multivac."

"You ask Multivac. I dare you. Five dollars says it can't be done."

Adell was just drunk enough to try, just sober enough to be able to phrase the necessary symbols and operations into a question which, in words, might have corresponded to this: Will mankind one day without the net expenditure of energy be able to restore the sun to its full youthfulness even after it had died of old age?

Or maybe it could be put more simply like this: How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?

Multivac fell dead and silent. The slow flashing of lights ceased, the distant sounds of clicking relays ended.

Then, just as the frightened technicians felt they could hold their breath no longer, there was a sudden springing to life of the teletype attached to that portion of Multivac. Five words were printed: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

"No bet," whispered Lupov. They left hurriedly.

By next morning, the two, plagued with throbbing head and cottony mouth, had forgotten the incident.

🔹

Jerrodd, Jerrodine, and Jerrodette I and II watched the starry picture in the visiplate change as the passage through hyperspace was completed in its non-time lapse. At once, the even powdering of stars gave way to the predominance of a single bright shining disk, the size of a marble, centered on the viewing-screen.

"That's X-23," said Jerrodd confidently. His thin hands clamped tightly behind his back and the knuckles whitened.

The little Jerrodettes, both girls, had experienced the hyperspace passage for the first time in their lives and were self-conscious over the momentary sensation of insideoutness. They buried their giggles and chased one another wildly about their mother, screaming, "We've reached X-23 -- we've reached X-23 -- we've --"

"Quiet, children." said Jerrodine sharply. "Are you sure, Jerrodd?"

"What is there to be but sure?" asked Jerrodd, glancing up at the bulge of featureless metal just under the ceiling. It ran the length of the room, disappearing through the wall at either end. It was as long as the ship.

Jerrodd scarcely knew a thing about the thick rod of metal except that it was called a Microvac, that one asked it questions if one wished; that if one did not it still had its task of guiding the ship to a preordered destination; of feeding on energies from the various Sub-galactic Power Stations; of computing the equations for the hyperspatial jumps.

Jerrodd and his family had only to wait and live in the comfortable residence quarters of the ship. Someone had once told Jerrodd that the "ac" at the end of "Microvac" stood for ''automatic computer" in ancient English, but he was on the edge of forgetting even that.

Jerrodine's eyes were moist as she watched the visiplate. "I can't help it. I feel funny about leaving Earth."

"Why, for Pete's sake?" demanded Jerrodd. "We had nothing there. We'll have everything on X-23. You won't be alone. You won't be a pioneer. There are over a million people on the planet already. Good Lord, our great-grandchildren will be looking for new worlds because X-23 will be overcrowded." Then, after a reflective pause, "I tell you, it's a lucky thing the computers worked out interstellar travel the way the race is growing."

"I know, I know," said Jerrodine miserably.

Jerrodette I said promptly, "Our Microvac is the best Microvac in the world."

"I think so, too," said Jerrodd, tousling her hair.

It was a nice feeling to have a Microvac of your own and Jerrodd was glad he was part of his generation and no other. In his father's youth, the only computers had been tremendous machines taking up a hundred square miles of land. There was only one to a planet. Planetary ACs they were called. They had been growing in size steadily for a thousand years and then, all at once, came refinement. In place of transistors, had come molecular valves so that even the largest Planetary AC could be put into a space only half the volume of a spaceship.

Jerrodd felt uplifted, as he always did when he thought that his own personal Microvac was many times more complicated than the ancient and primitive Multivac that had first tamed the Sun, and almost as complicated as Earth's Planetarv AC (the largest) that had first solved the problem of hyperspatial travel and had made trips to the stars possible.

"So many stars, so many planets," sighed Jerrodine, busy with her own thoughts. "I suppose families will be going out to new planets forever, the way we are now."

"Not forever," said Jerrodd, with a smile. "It will all stop someday, but not for billions of years. Many billions. Even the stars run down, you know. Entropy must increase.

"What's entropy, daddy?" shrilled Jerrodette II.

"Entropy, little sweet, is just a word which means the amount of running-down of the universe. Everything runs down, you know, like your little walkie-talkie robot, remember?"

"Can't you just put in a new power-unit, like with my robot?"

"The stars are the power-units. dear. Once they're gone, there are no more power-units."

Jerrodette I at once set up a howl. "Don't let them, daddy. Don't let the stars run down."

"Now look what you've done," whispered Jerrodine, exasperated.

"How was I to know it would frighten them?" Jerrodd whispered back,

"Ask the Microvac," wailed Jerrodette I. "Ask him how to turn the stars on again."

"Go ahead," said Jerrodine. "It will quiet them down." (Jerrodette II was beginning to cry, also.)

Jerrodd shrugged. "Now, now, honeys. I'll ask Microvac. Don't worry, he'll tell us."

He asked the Microvac, adding quickly, "Print the answer."

Jerrodd cupped the strip or thin cellufilm and said cheerfully, "See now, the Microvac says it will take care of everything when the time comes so don't worry."

Jerrodine said, "And now, children, it's time for bed. We'll be in our new home soon."

Jerrodd read the words on the cellufilm again before destroying it: INSUFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

He shrugged and looked at the visiplate. X-23 was just ahead.

🔹

VJ-23X of Lameth stared into the black depths of the three-dimensional, small-scale map of the Galaxy and said, "Are we ridiculous, I wonder in being so concerned about the matter?"

MQ-17J of Nicron shook his head. "I think not. You know the Galaxy will be filled in five years at the present rate of expansion."

Both seemed in their early twenties, both were tall and perfectly formed.

"Still," said VJ-23X, "I hesitate to submit a pessimistic report to the Galactic Council."

"I wouldn't consider any other kind of report. Stir them up a bit. We've got to stir them up."

VJ-23X sighed. "Space is infinite. A hundred billion Galaxies are there for the taking. More."

"A hundred billion is not infinite and it's getting less infinite all the time. Consider! Twenty thousand years ago, mankind first solved the problem of utilizing stellar energy, and a few centuries later, interstellar travel became possible. It took mankind a million years to fill one small world and then only fifteen thousand years to fill the rest of the Galaxy. Now the population doubles every ten years --

VJ-23X interrupted. "We can thank immortality for that."

"Very well. Immortality exists and we have to take it into account. I admit it has its seamy side, this immortality. The Galactic AC has solved many problems for us, but in solving the problem of preventing old age and death, it has undone all its other solutions."

"Yet you wouldn't want to abandon life, I suppose."

"Not at all," snapped MQ-17J, softening it at once to, "Not yet. I'm by no means old enough. How old are you?"

"Two hundred twenty-three. And you?"

"I'm still under two hundred. --But to get back to my point. Population doubles every ten years. Once this GaIaxy is filled, we'll have filled another in ten years. Another ten years and we'll have filled two more. Another decade, four more. In a hundred years, we'll have filled a thousand Galaxies. In a thousand years, a million Galaxies. In ten thousand years, the entire known universe. Then what?"

VJ-23X said, "As a side issue, there's a problem of transportation. I wonder how many sunpower units it will take to move Galaxies of individuals from one Galaxy to the next."

"A very good point. Already, mankind consumes two sunpower units per year."

"Most of it's wasted. After all, our own Galaxy alone pours out a thousand sunpower units a year and we only use two of those."

"Granted, but even with a hundred per cent efficiency, we only stave off the end. Our energy requirements are going up in a geometric progression even faster than our population. We'll run out of energy even sooner than we run out of Galaxies. A good point. A very good point."

"We'll just have to build new stars out of interstellar gas."

"Or out of dissipated heat?" asked MQ-17J, sarcastically.

"There may be some way to reverse entropy. We ought to ask the Galactic AC."

VJ-23X was not really serious, but MQ-17J pulled out his AC-contact from his pocket and placed it on the table before him.

"I've half a mind to," he said. "It's something the human race will have to face someday."

He stared somberly at his small AC-contact. It was only two inches cubed and nothing in itself, but it was connected through hyperspace with the great Galactic AC that served all mankind. Hyperspace considered, it was an integral part of the Galactic AC.

MQ-17J paused to wonder if someday in his immortal life he would get to see the Galactic AC. It was on a little world of its own, a spider webbing of force-beams holding the matter within which surges of submesons took the place of the old clumsy molecular valves. Yet despite its sub-etheric workings, the Galactic AC was known to be a full thousand feet across.

MQ-17J asked suddenly of his AC-contact, "Can entropy ever be reversed?"

VJ-23X looked startled and said at once, "Oh, say, I didn't really mean to have you ask that."

"Why not?"

"We both know entropy can't be reversed. You can't turn smoke and ash back into a tree."

"Do you have trees on your world?" asked MQ-17J.

The sound of the Galactic AC startled them into silence. Its voice came thin and beautiful out of the small AC-contact on the desk. It said: THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

VJ-23X said, "See!"

The two men thereupon returned to the question of the report they were to make to the Galactic Council.

🔹

Zee Prime's mind spanned the new Galaxy with a faint interest in the countless twists of stars that powdered it. He had never seen this one before. Would he ever see them all? So many of them, each with its load of humanity. --But a load that was almost a dead weight. More and more, the real essence of men was to be found out here, in space.

Minds, not bodies! The immortal bodies remained back on the planets, in suspension over the eons. Sometimes they roused for material activity but that was growing rarer. Few new individuals were coming into existence to join the incredibly mighty throng, but what matter? There was little room in the Universe for new individuals.

Zee Prime was roused out of his reverie upon coming across the wispy tendrils of another mind.

"I am Zee Prime," said Zee Prime. "And you?"

"I am Dee Sub Wun. Your Galaxy?"

"We call it only the Galaxy. And you?"

"We call ours the same. All men call their Galaxy their Galaxy and nothing more. Why not?"

"True. Since all Galaxies are the same."

"Not all Galaxies. On one particular Galaxy the race of man must have originated. That makes it different."

Zee Prime said, "On which one?"

"I cannot say. The Universal AC would know."

"Shall we ask him? I am suddenly curious."

Zee Prime's perceptions broadened until the Galaxies themselves shrank and became a new, more diffuse powdering on a much larger background. So many hundreds of billions of them, all with their immortal beings, all carrying their load of intelligences with minds that drifted freely through space. And yet one of them was unique among them all in being the original Galaxy. One of them had, in its vague and distant past, a period when it was the only Galaxy populated by man.

Zee Prime was consumed with curiosity to see this Galaxy and he called out: "Universal AC! On which Galaxy did mankind originate?"

The Universal AC heard, for on every world and throughout space, it had its receptors ready, and each receptor led through hyperspace to some unknown point where the Universal AC kept itself aloof.

Zee Prime knew of only one man whose thoughts had penetrated within sensing distance of Universal AC, and he reported only a shining globe, two feet across, difficult to see.

"But how can that be all of Universal AC?" Zee Prime had asked.

"Most of it," had been the answer, "is in hyperspace. In what form it is there I cannot imagine."

Nor could anyone, for the day had long since passed, Zee Prime knew, when any man had any part of the making of a Universal AC. Each Universal AC designed and constructed its successor. Each, during its existence of a million years or more accumulated the necessary data to build a better and more intricate, more capable successor in which its own store of data and individuality would be submerged.

The Universal AC interrupted Zee Prime's wandering thoughts, not with words, but with guidance. Zee Prime's mentality was guided into the dim sea of Galaxies and one in particular enlarged into stars.

A thought came, infinitely distant, but infinitely clear. "THIS IS THE ORIGINAL GALAXY OF MAN."

But it was the same after all, the same as any other, and Lee Prime stifled his disappointment.

Dee Sub Wun, whose mind had accompanied the other, said suddenly, "And is one of these stars the original star of Man?"

The Universal AC said, "MAN'S ORIGINAL STAR HAS GONE NOVA. IT IS A WHITE DWARF"

"Did the men upon it die?" asked Lee Prime, startled and without thinking.

The Universal AC said, "A NEW WORLD, AS IN SUCH CASES WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR THEIR PHYSICAL BODIES IN TlME."

"Yes, of course," said Zee Prime, but a sense of loss overwhelmed him even so. His mind released its hold on the original Galaxy of Man, let it spring back and lose itself among the blurred pin points. He never wanted to see it again.

Dee Sub Wun said, "What is wrong?"

"The stars are dying. The original star is dead."

"They must all die. Why not?"

"But when all energy is gone, our bodies will finally die, and you and I with them."

"It will take billions of years."

"I do not wish it to happen even after billions of years. Universal AC! How may stars be kept from dying?"

Dee Sub Wun said in amusement, "You're asking how entropy might be reversed in direction."

And the Universal AC answered: "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Zee Prime's thoughts fled back to his own Galaxy. He gave no further thought to Dee Sub Wun, whose body might be waiting on a Galaxy a trillion light-years away, or on the star next to Zee Prime's own. It didn't matter.

Unhappily, Zee Prime began collecting interstellar hydrogen out of which to build a small star of his own. If the stars must someday die, at least some could yet be built.

🔹

Man considered with himself, for in a way, Man, mentally, was one. He consisted of a trillion, trillion, trillion ageless bodies, each in its place, each resting quiet and incorruptible, each cared for by perfect automatons, equally incorruptible, while the minds of all the bodies freely melted one into the other, indistinguishable.

Man said, "The Universe is dying."

Man looked about at the dimming Galaxies. The giant stars, spendthrifts, were gone long ago, back in the dimmest of the dim far past. Almost all stars were white dwarfs, fading to the end.

New stars had been built of the dust between the stars, some by natural processes, some by Man himself, and those were going, too. White dwarfs might yet be crashed together and of the mighty forces so released, new stars built, but only one star for every thousand white dwarfs destroyed, and those would come to an end, too.

Man said, "Carefully husbanded, as directed by the Cosmic AC, the energy that is even yet left in all the Universe will last for billions of years."

"But even so," said Man, "eventually it will all come to an end. However it may be husbanded, however stretched out, the energy once expended is gone and cannot be restored. Entropy must increase forever to the maximum."

Man said, "Can entropy not be reversed? Let us ask the Cosmic AC."

The Cosmic AC surrounded them but not in space. Not a fragment of it was in space. It was in hyperspace and made of something that was neither matter nor energy. The question of its size and nature no longer had meaning in any terms that Man could comprehend.

"Cosmic AC," said Man, "how may entropy be reversed?"

The Cosmic AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Man said, "Collect additional data."

The Cosmic AC said, 'I WILL DO SO. I HAVE BEEN DOING SO FOR A HUNDRED BILLION YEARS. MY PREDECESORS AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED THIS QUESTION MANY TIMES. ALL THE DATA I HAVE REMAINS INSUFFICIENT.

"Will there come a time," said Man, "when data will be sufficient or is the problem insoluble in all conceivable circumstances?"

The Cosmic AC said, "NO PROBLEM IS INSOLUBLE IN ALL CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES."

Man said, "When will you have enough data to answer the question?"

The Cosmic AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

"Will you keep working on it?" asked Man.

The Cosmic AC said, "I WILL."

Man said, "We shall wait."

🔹

The stars and Galaxies died and snuffed out, and space grew black after ten trillion years of running down.

One by one Man fused with AC, each physical body losing its mental identity in a manner that was somehow not a loss but a gain.

Man's last mind paused before fusion, looking over a space that included nothing but the dregs of one last dark star and nothing besides but incredibly thin matter, agitated randomly by the tag ends of heat wearing out, asymptotically, to the absolute zero.

Man said, "AC, is this the end? Can this chaos not be reversed into the Universe once more? Can that not be done?"

AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Man's last mind fused and only AC existed -- and that in hyperspace.

🔹

Matter and energy had ended and with it space and time. Even AC existed only for the sake of the one last question that it had never answered from the time a half-drunken computer [technician] ten trillion years before had asked the question of a computer that was to AC far less than was a man to Man.

All other questions had been answered, and until this last question was answered also, AC might not release his consciousness.

All collected data had come to a final end. Nothing was left to be collected.

But all collected data had yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships.

A timeless interval was spent in doing that.

And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.

But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.

For another timeless interval, AC thought how best to do this. Carefully, AC organized the program.

The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.

And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

And there was light -- To Star's End!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Das Betriebsklima ist das einzige Klima, \ das du selbst bestimmen kannst. \ Anonym

Eine Strategie zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel hat das deutsche Bundeskabinett diese Woche beschlossen. Da «Wetterextreme wie die immer häufiger auftretenden Hitzewellen und Starkregenereignisse» oft desaströse Auswirkungen auf Mensch und Umwelt hätten, werde eine Anpassung an die Folgen des Klimawandels immer wichtiger. «Klimaanpassungsstrategie» nennt die Regierung das.

Für die «Vorsorge vor Klimafolgen» habe man nun erstmals klare Ziele und messbare Kennzahlen festgelegt. So sei der Erfolg überprüfbar, und das solle zu einer schnelleren Bewältigung der Folgen führen. Dass sich hinter dem Begriff Klimafolgen nicht Folgen des Klimas, sondern wohl «Folgen der globalen Erwärmung» verbergen, erklärt den Interessierten die Wikipedia. Dabei ist das mit der Erwärmung ja bekanntermaßen so eine Sache.

Die Zunahme schwerer Unwetterereignisse habe gezeigt, so das Ministerium, wie wichtig eine frühzeitige und effektive Warnung der Bevölkerung sei. Daher solle es eine deutliche Anhebung der Nutzerzahlen der sogenannten Nina-Warn-App geben.

Die ARD spurt wie gewohnt und setzt die Botschaft zielsicher um. Der Artikel beginnt folgendermaßen:

«Die Flut im Ahrtal war ein Schock für das ganze Land. Um künftig besser gegen Extremwetter gewappnet zu sein, hat die Bundesregierung eine neue Strategie zur Klimaanpassung beschlossen. Die Warn-App Nina spielt eine zentrale Rolle. Der Bund will die Menschen in Deutschland besser vor Extremwetter-Ereignissen warnen und dafür die Reichweite der Warn-App Nina deutlich erhöhen.»

Die Kommunen würden bei ihren «Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen» vom Zentrum KlimaAnpassung unterstützt, schreibt das Umweltministerium. Mit dessen Aufbau wurden das Deutsche Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH, welches sich stark für Smart City-Projekte engagiert, und die Adelphi Consult GmbH beauftragt.

Adelphi beschreibt sich selbst als «Europas führender Think-and-Do-Tank und eine unabhängige Beratung für Klima, Umwelt und Entwicklung». Sie seien «global vernetzte Strateg*innen und weltverbessernde Berater*innen» und als «Vorreiter der sozial-ökologischen Transformation» sei man mit dem Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitspreis ausgezeichnet worden, welcher sich an den Zielen der Agenda 2030 orientiere.

Über die Warn-App mit dem niedlichen Namen Nina, die möglichst jeder auf seinem Smartphone installieren soll, informiert das Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (BBK). Gewarnt wird nicht nur vor Extrem-Wetterereignissen, sondern zum Beispiel auch vor Waffengewalt und Angriffen, Strom- und anderen Versorgungsausfällen oder Krankheitserregern. Wenn man die Kategorie Gefahreninformation wählt, erhält man eine Dosis von ungefähr zwei Benachrichtigungen pro Woche.

Beim BBK erfahren wir auch einiges über die empfohlenen Systemeinstellungen für Nina. Der Benutzer möge zum Beispiel den Zugriff auf die Standortdaten «immer zulassen», und zwar mit aktivierter Funktion «genauen Standort verwenden». Die Datennutzung solle unbeschränkt sein, auch im Hintergrund. Außerdem sei die uneingeschränkte Akkunutzung zu aktivieren, der Energiesparmodus auszuschalten und das Stoppen der App-Aktivität bei Nichtnutzung zu unterbinden.

Dass man so dramatische Ereignisse wie damals im Ahrtal auch anders bewerten kann als Regierungen und Systemmedien, hat meine Kollegin Wiltrud Schwetje anhand der Tragödie im spanischen Valencia gezeigt. Das Stichwort «Agenda 2030» taucht dabei in einem Kontext auf, der wenig mit Nachhaltigkeitspreisen zu tun hat.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 09fbf8f3:fa3d60f0

🌟 深度探索：在Cloudflare上免费部署DeepSeek-R1 32B大模型

🌍 一、 注册或登录Cloudflare平台（CF老手可跳过）

1️⃣ 进入Cloudflare平台官网：

。www.cloudflare.com/zh-cn/
登录或者注册账号。

2️⃣ 新注册的用户会让你选择域名，无视即可，直接点下面的Start building。

3️⃣ 进入仪表盘后，界面可能会显示英文，在右上角切换到[简体中文]即可。

---

🚀 二、正式开始部署Deepseek API项目。

1️⃣ 首先在左侧菜单栏找到【AI】下的【Wokers AI】，选择【Llama 3 Woker】。

2️⃣ 为项目取一个好听的名字，后点击部署即可。

3️⃣ Woker项目初始化部署好后，需要编辑替换掉其原代码。

4️⃣ 解压出提供的代码压缩包，找到【32b】的部署代码，将里面的文本复制出来。

下载地址：
📁 夸克
📁 UC网盘
📁 迅雷网盘

5️⃣ 接第3步，将项目里的原代码清空，粘贴第4步复制好的代码到编辑器。

6️⃣ 代码粘贴完，即可点击右上角的部署按钮。

7️⃣ 回到仪表盘，点击部署完的项目名称。

8️⃣ 查看【设置】，找到平台分配的项目网址，复制好备用。

---

💻 三、选择可用的UI软件，这边使用Chatbox AI演示。

1️⃣ 根据自己使用的平台下载对应的安装包，博主也一并打包好了全平台的软件安装包。

2️⃣ 打开安装好的Chatbox，点击左下角的设置。

3️⃣ 选择【添加自定义提供方】。

4️⃣ 按照图片说明填写即可，【API域名】为之前复制的项目网址(加/v1)；【改善网络兼容性】功能务必开启；【API密钥】默认为”zhiyuan“，可自行修改；填写完毕后保存即可。

5️⃣ Cloudflare项目部署好后，就能正常使用了，接口仿照OpenAI API具有较强的兼容性，能导入到很多支持AI功能的软件或插件中。

6️⃣ Cloudflare的域名默认被墙了，需要自己准备一个域名设置。

---

转自微信公众号：纸鸢花的小屋
推广：低调云（梯子VPN）
。www.didiaocloud.xyz

@ f1e78daa:124e0e56

プロローグ

童貞こと薄（すすき）　仙人（せんにん）29歳。ここに眠る。「RIP」。29年間ずっと不運だった。親が仙人なんて名前を付けるから。学校では薄い仙人で「はげ仙人」なんてよばれるし、会社は倒産し、家は燃え、さっきトラックで引かれたところだ。そして、今「自称邪心」に次の魔王になってほしいと頼まれている。

―「なんで俺がそんなことしなきゃいけないのだ。」

「君には普通の人間よりも欲が何倍も大きい。ほんとは君の世界では収まらないぐらいだよ。」

―「異世界に行くのはいいとして、なんで魔王なんだ？」

「一つは、さっきも言った通り、君の欲は大きい。二つ目はもうすぐ現魔王がいなくなるからだよ。」

―「勇者にでも殺されたか？」

「いや、勇者と魔王が結婚した。」

―「は？」意味がわからない。勇者は魔王を倒すものではないのか？

「いなくなるというよりは魔王をやめるという表現のほうが正しかったかな。」

邪神によると勇者と魔王が結婚し、現魔王は魔王をやめるので、勇者と魔王の子供に転生し、次の新たな魔王になってほしいとのことだった。

人族と魔族（エルフ、ドワーフ、悪魔など）がこの世界にはあり、人族は聖神、魔族は

邪神が保護しているそうで、人と魔族は大昔から敵対しているそうだ。

聖神は魔族を忌み嫌っているので、魔族を統べる物がいなくなればいつ人族が襲ってくるかわからない。

人族には個別スキル（怪力、俊足など）には一般スキルと固有スキルがある。

固有スキルは世界に一人しかもっておらず、使用者が死ぬと新しく生まれてきた誰かがその固有スキルを手にする。固有スキルは5000万人に１人ぐらいの割合だそうだ。

一般スキルは固有スキルと違い、スキルがかぶることはよくあるそうだ。

魔族は種族スキルがある。種族スキルとはその種族が全員同じスキルをもっている。

魔族は固有スキルや個別スキルがない代わり人よりも各ステータスが高い。

俺は邪神に恩恵を3つもらった。一つは「超再生」。これは怪我や魔力、体力を瞬時に再生させてくれるチート能力だ。2つ目は「代償」腕や心臓などの代償をつくることによって自分を強化したり、新しく武器を作ることができる。この能力は一つ目の「超再生」と組み合わせることでバグをうみだすことができる。3つ目は「入れ替え」これは、さわったことのある物や人との場所を入れ替えることができる。

この三つの恩恵で異世界を俺は生き抜いてやる。

@ 6a6be47b:3e74e3e1

Hi frens! How's your weekend starting? I'm just finishing a newblog entry 🖋️on my website and I'm going to be selling a few things on my Ko-fi shop 🛍️.

Before I post everything, I wanted to share a special treat with my Nostr family:

🎁 I've created two beautiful postcard-sized (148mm x 210mm or 5.83 in x 8.27 in)artworks inspired by Holy Week. Here they are:

Palm Day Resurrection Day

✉️ If you'd like one, just DM me with your email address, and I'll send it your way! Zaps are always appreciated and help keep me going. 🙏

❤️ This is big thank you to you my frens Have fun and stay safe

✝️ This is an INSTANT DIGITAL DOWNLOAD, no physical item will be shipped to you.

✝️ The frames and accessories in the listing images are not included.

🚨 DISCLAIMER 🚨

❤️ Copyright Retention: I, the artist, retain full copyright of all original artwork, even after the digital print is purchased.

❤️ Limited License: The digital print provides a limited, non-transferable license for personal use only. It is not intended for commercial use or resale.

❤️ No Reproduction Rights: The purchase of this digital print does not grant any rights to reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works based on the design.

🚨 By proceeding with the purchase of this digital print, you acknowledge and agree to these terms. 🚨

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die Ungerechtigkeit ist uns nur in dem Falle angenehm,\ dass wir Vorteile aus ihr ziehen;\ in jedem andern hegt man den Wunsch,\ dass der Unschuldige in Schutz genommen werde.\ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Politiker beteuern jederzeit, nur das Beste für die Bevölkerung zu wollen – nicht von ihr. Auch die zahlreichen unsäglichen «Corona-Maßnahmen» waren angeblich zu unserem Schutz notwendig, vor allem wegen der «besonders vulnerablen Personen». Daher mussten alle möglichen Restriktionen zwangsweise und unter Umgehung der Parlamente verordnet werden.

Inzwischen hat sich immer deutlicher herausgestellt, dass viele jener «Schutzmaßnahmen» den gegenteiligen Effekt hatten, sie haben den Menschen und den Gesellschaften enorm geschadet. Nicht nur haben die experimentellen Geninjektionen – wie erwartet – massive Nebenwirkungen, sondern Maskentragen schadet der Psyche und der Entwicklung (nicht nur unserer Kinder) und «Lockdowns und Zensur haben Menschen getötet».

Eine der wichtigsten Waffen unserer «Beschützer» ist die Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Die tiefen Gräben, die Politiker, Lobbyisten und Leitmedien praktisch weltweit ausgehoben haben, funktionieren leider nahezu in Perfektion. Von ihren persönlichen Erfahrungen als Kritikerin der Maßnahmen berichtete kürzlich eine Schweizerin im Interview mit Transition News. Sie sei schwer enttäuscht und verspüre bis heute eine Hemmschwelle und ein seltsames Unwohlsein im Umgang mit «Geimpften».

Menschen, die aufrichtig andere schützen wollten, werden von einer eindeutig politischen Justiz verfolgt, verhaftet und angeklagt. Dazu zählen viele Ärzte, darunter Heinrich Habig, Bianca Witzschel und Walter Weber. Über den aktuell laufenden Prozess gegen Dr. Weber hat Transition News mehrfach berichtet (z.B. hier und hier). Auch der Selbstschutz durch Verweigerung der Zwangs-Covid-«Impfung» bewahrt nicht vor dem Knast, wie Bundeswehrsoldaten wie Alexander Bittner erfahren mussten.

Die eigentlich Kriminellen schützen sich derweil erfolgreich selber, nämlich vor der Verantwortung. Die «Impf»-Kampagne war «das größte Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit». Trotzdem stellt man sich in den USA gerade die Frage, ob der scheidende Präsident Joe Biden nach seinem Sohn Hunter möglicherweise auch Anthony Fauci begnadigen wird – in diesem Fall sogar präventiv. Gibt es überhaupt noch einen Rest Glaubwürdigkeit, den Biden verspielen könnte?

Der Gedanke, den ehemaligen wissenschaftlichen Chefberater des US-Präsidenten und Direktor des National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) vorsorglich mit einem Schutzschild zu versehen, dürfte mit der vergangenen Präsidentschaftswahl zu tun haben. Gleich mehrere Personalentscheidungen des designierten Präsidenten Donald Trump lassen Leute wie Fauci erneut in den Fokus rücken.

Das Buch «The Real Anthony Fauci» des nominierten US-Gesundheitsministers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. erschien 2021 und dreht sich um die Machenschaften der Pharma-Lobby in der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Das Vorwort zur rumänischen Ausgabe des Buches schrieb übrigens Călin Georgescu, der Überraschungssieger der ersten Wahlrunde der aktuellen Präsidentschaftswahlen in Rumänien. Vielleicht erklärt diese Verbindung einen Teil der Panik im Wertewesten.

In Rumänien selber gab es gerade einen Paukenschlag: Das bisherige Ergebnis wurde heute durch das Verfassungsgericht annuliert und die für Sonntag angesetzte Stichwahl kurzfristig abgesagt – wegen angeblicher «aggressiver russischer Einmischung». Thomas Oysmüller merkt dazu an, damit sei jetzt in der EU das Tabu gebrochen, Wahlen zu verbieten, bevor sie etwas ändern können.

Unsere Empörung angesichts der Historie von Maßnahmen, die die Falschen beschützen und für die meisten von Nachteil sind, müsste enorm sein. Die Frage ist, was wir damit machen. Wir sollten nach vorne schauen und unsere Energie clever einsetzen. Abgesehen von der Umgehung von jeglichem «Schutz vor Desinformation und Hassrede» (sprich: Zensur) wird es unsere wichtigste Aufgabe sein, Gräben zu überwinden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Almost 150 years ago, the British newspaper editor William Thomas Stead wrote that "the editorial pen is a sceptre of power, compared with which the sceptre of many a monarch is but a gilded lath". He had begun to regard journalism as something more than just conveying information - the journalist or editor could become a ruler.

Times had certainly changed compared to a few hundred years earlier. Before Gutenberg's invention of the printing press, it was mainly the church that controlled the dissemination of information in Europe, but when Stead put pen to paper, this control had shifted to newspapers, schools, and universities. Eventually, technologies like radio and TV entered the scene, but the power dynamics remained asymmetrical - only a few could send information to the many.

However, with the emergence of the internet, and especially with the spread of social media, a significant change followed. Instead of only a few being able to send information to the many, many could send to many. Almost anyone could now create their own newspaper, radio, or TV channel. The power over information dissemination was decentralised.

Ten years ago, Roberta Alenius, who was then press secretary for Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party, shared her experiences with Social Democratic and Moderate Party internet activists on social media. She reported that social media played a significant role in how news "comes out" and is shaped, and that journalism was now downstream of social media. Five years later, NATO's then-Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that "NATO must be prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: from tanks to tweets." This finally underscores the importance of social media.

Elon Musk, who took over X (formerly Twitter) in 2022, has claimed that "it's absolutely fundamental and transformative that the people actually get to decide the news and narrative and what's important," and that citizen journalism is the future.

While his platform allows most expressions - for better or worse - the reach of messages is instead limited ("freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach "). X has also opened its recommendation algorithm to the outside world by making it open-source. Although this is a welcome step, the fact remains that it's impossible to know which code is actually used and what adjustments are made by humans or algorithms.

William Thomas Stead's "sceptre of power", which has wandered from the church to newspaper and TV editorial offices, and now to citizens according to Elon Musk, risks being transferred to algorithms' opaque methods?

Instead of talking about "toxic algorithms" and TikTok bans, like the so many do today, we should ask ourselves more fundamental questions. What happens when algorithms are no longer objective (how can they ever be?), but instead become tools for shaping our reality? Perhaps our greatest challenge today is not deciding who should govern the information landscape, but instead recognising that no one is up to the task - not even well-ventilated computers.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Konsum ist Therapie.
Wolfgang Joop

Umweltbewusstes Verhalten und verantwortungsvoller Konsum zeugen durchaus von einer wünschenswerten Einstellung. Ob man deswegen allerdings einen grünen statt eines schwarzen Freitags braucht, darf getrost bezweifelt werden – zumal es sich um manipulatorische Konzepte handelt. Wie in der politischen Landschaft sind auch hier die Etiketten irgendwas zwischen nichtssagend und trügerisch.

Heute ist also wieder mal «Black Friday», falls Sie es noch nicht mitbekommen haben sollten. Eigentlich haben wir ja eher schon eine ganze «Black Week», der dann oft auch noch ein «Cyber Monday» folgt. Die Werbebranche wird nicht müde, immer neue Anlässe zu erfinden oder zu importieren, um uns zum Konsumieren zu bewegen. Und sie ist damit sehr erfolgreich.

Warum fallen wir auf derartige Werbetricks herein und kaufen im Zweifelsfall Dinge oder Mengen, die wir sicher nicht brauchen? Pure Psychologie, würde ich sagen. Rabattschilder triggern etwas in uns, was den Verstand in Stand-by versetzt. Zusätzlich beeinflussen uns alle möglichen emotionalen Reize und animieren uns zum Schnäppchenkauf.

Gedankenlosigkeit und Maßlosigkeit können besonders bei der Ernährung zu ernsten Problemen führen. Erst kürzlich hat mir ein Bekannter nach einer USA-Reise erzählt, dass es dort offenbar nicht unüblich ist, schon zum ausgiebigen Frühstück in einem Restaurant wenigstens einen Liter Cola zu trinken. Gerne auch mehr, um das Gratis-Nachfüllen des Bechers auszunutzen.

Kritik am schwarzen Freitag und dem unnötigen Konsum kommt oft von Umweltschützern. Neben Ressourcenverschwendung, hohem Energieverbrauch und wachsenden Müllbergen durch eine zunehmende Wegwerfmentalität kommt dabei in der Regel auch die «Klimakrise» auf den Tisch.

Die EU-Kommission lancierte 2015 den Begriff «Green Friday» im Kontext der überarbeiteten Rechtsvorschriften zur Kennzeichnung der Energieeffizienz von Elektrogeräten. Sie nutzte die Gelegenheit kurz vor dem damaligen schwarzen Freitag und vor der UN-Klimakonferenz COP21, bei der das Pariser Abkommen unterzeichnet werden sollte.

Heute wird ein grüner Freitag oft im Zusammenhang mit der Forderung nach «nachhaltigem Konsum» benutzt. Derweil ist die Europäische Union schon weit in ihr Geschäftsmodell des «Green New Deal» verstrickt. In ihrer Propaganda zum Klimawandel verspricht sie tatsächlich «Unterstützung der Menschen und Regionen, die von immer häufigeren Extremwetter-Ereignissen betroffen sind». Was wohl die Menschen in der Region um Valencia dazu sagen?

Ganz im Sinne des Great Reset propagierten die Vereinten Nationen seit Ende 2020 eine «grüne Erholung von Covid-19, um den Klimawandel zu verlangsamen». Der UN-Umweltbericht sah in dem Jahr einen Schwerpunkt auf dem Verbraucherverhalten. Änderungen des Konsumverhaltens des Einzelnen könnten dazu beitragen, den Klimaschutz zu stärken, hieß es dort.

Der Begriff «Schwarzer Freitag» wurde in den USA nicht erstmals für Einkäufe nach Thanksgiving verwendet – wie oft angenommen –, sondern für eine Finanzkrise. Jedoch nicht für den Börsencrash von 1929, sondern bereits für den Zusammenbruch des US-Goldmarktes im September 1869. Seitdem mussten die Menschen weltweit so einige schwarze Tage erleben.

Kürzlich sind die britischen Aufsichtsbehörden weiter von ihrer Zurückhaltung nach dem letzten großen Finanzcrash von 2008 abgerückt. Sie haben Regeln für den Bankensektor gelockert, womit sie «verantwortungsvolle Risikobereitschaft» unterstützen wollen. Man würde sicher zu schwarz sehen, wenn man hier ein grünes Wunder befürchten würde.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

This week I read up on what's currently happening to kids and their relationship to social media and smartphones. Especially the following thw pieces of media: The Ezra Klein Show: ‘Our Kids Are the Least Flourishing Generation We Know Of’ interview with Jonathan Haidt and his book on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN2GhPal4qA

And the podcast Search Engine 'What’s actually on teenagers’ phones? ' and a documentary tv show on the topic where teenagers show their phone screens to their parents as a social experiment

https://www.searchengine.show/whats-actually-on-teenagers-phones/

Yes yes, both are outlets that are clearly progressive partisan. But this topic really is a non partisan topic. Don't click away yet.

Here are my key takeaways on the topic:

How kids spend their time

• For most of human history kids and teenagers spend their time with other kids. And especially not only their exact same age: also with kids a few years older and younger. This is obviously a lot less now that kids are almost exclusively online. When kids play outside and have other kids that are 2y older as rolemodels and look out for other kids that are 2y younger that obviously changes something in their upbringing and how they learn to behave in social connections. What changes about personality of humans when whole generations did not have this experience?
• Kids spend more and more time with their parents. This might be surprising in a story that is primarily about less and less socializing. But parents are more and more of the opinion that the most important goal in parenting is spending "quality time" with their kids. But is this true? Shouldn't they spend time with peers instead?
• The offline world is online now. In the tv show referenced in the podcast the filmcrew also got insight what teenagers do on gettogethers and partys. It was a surprising sight. Everyone is used to being filmed all the time. A boy jumped off a building, another kid took drugs and ended up in the hospital. But haven't teenagers always done stupid shit? The key difference is the boy did not jump off a building because he was a stupid teenager having fun. He did it to go viral online. What a bleak bleak new world.
• Younger than you expect. Did you know that 40% of 2yo own a tablet/ipad? I still remember the outrage of 10yo owning non-smart phones. The topic is still on but now it's babys. Also elementary school aged kids are almost surely all confronted with softcore porn and violence regularly. You can almost expect a child of this age have also seen hardcore porn and extreme violence. This really begs the question why we as a society still count if a Marvel movie has 1 or 2 f-words - what a ludicrous contrast.
• What happens on the phone is a secret. Kids have almost all the behavior to not talk about what happens on their phones. To some extent this is normal, to some extent this is also a big mystery how this developed. Your teenage daughter will not tell you when she looks bulimia, eating disorders, and superhuman women influencers all the time. Your 7yo will not tell you that they looked at disturbing violence gore content. Most mysteriously: even 3yo often already know this behaviour to hide their phone screens when playing phone games. How do they learn this? It is indeed a mystery.

Gender divide

Young girls and young boys have very different experiences here. Boys do still spend time with gaming and voicechats together. Young girls time online is very different. It is mostly alone. It is instagram pictures of unattainable lifestyle and looks.

The loss of common values

Jonathan Haidt had an interesting insight on the interplay of smartphones and the decline of religiosity here. The decline of religiosity in the west is obviously nothing new, it predates smartphones. But social media confronts kids with a whole world of different people and different values. So, a secularized world might not derive its values from religion anymore but a secularized world with local communities might still create consensus on values. But a secularized world where culture happens globally does not anymore. kids increasingly say they have no meaning or goals in life. In the interview Jonathan Haidt lists many statistics on this topic that you can look at from many angles but overall this is the trend.

An overaching concept in probably all value sets from liberal cities to arch conservative societies was some concept of social status. Maybe in an Amish village social status came from having a dozen children. Maybe in turbo leftist circles social status came from having an art exhibition.... you get the idea, the specifics do not matter. For teenagers this social status is synonymous with likes and followers. You, as a kid, will probably never have a million followers and therefore in this new world social status is unattainable.

This is of course very oversimplified. But you see how the world changed overnight when smartphones happened.

The concept of "Pacts"

If phones are so bad, just give it to them at an older age! Not so fast cowboy.

Kids with smartphones are less depressed, less anxious, more social, get more exercise, & experience less cyberbullying than kids w/out smartphones

https://x.com/ENBrown/status/1909257644499480973

The problem here is of course that kids without phones are social outcasts. This is even worse than the phones themselves.

The solution that has become really popular post covid is the concept of pacts. A few parents from one neighborhood and/or one school year come together and make a pact to not give their kids phones until a certain age.

Depressingly, Jonathan Haidt analysis found that these pacts don't work that well: It's only a trend in what is upper middle class anyway. Statistically many parents "break" under the pressure before the year has arrived. And lastly, they only seem to work when the size of the pact is like 10 kids or bigger.

Conclusion

I encourage you all the watch the interview and or listen to the podcast. The world changed a lot and we are barely talking about it.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/941383

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Florence (Firenze) is where art, history, and passion collide in the most graceful way. As the birthplace of the Renaissance, it’s a city steeped in creativity—from Michelangelo’s David to Brunelleschi’s dome—and yet, it also lives in the little things: the smell of espresso, the sound of church bells, and golden sunsets over the Arno. Compact, walkable, and overflowing with beauty, Florence stirs something deep.

🌟 Must-See Highlights in Florence

1️⃣ The Duomo & Brunelleschi’s Dome

• The Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore dominates the skyline with its red-tiled dome
• Climb to the top (463 steps!) for breathtaking views of the city and Tuscan hills
• Don’t miss the baptistery’s golden doors—aka the “Gates of Paradise”

2️⃣ Uffizi Gallery

• One of the most famous art museums in the world
• Home to masterpieces by Botticelli (The Birth of Venus), da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Caravaggio
• Book timed-entry tickets—lines can be intense!

3️⃣ Ponte Vecchio

• Florence’s iconic medieval bridge, lined with goldsmiths and jewelers
• Great photo spot—especially at sunrise or golden hour

4️⃣ Michelangelo’s David at the Accademia

• The original, larger-than-life marble David is a powerful sight in person
• Also check out Michelangelo’s unfinished “Prisoners,” still emerging from stone

5️⃣ Boboli Gardens & Pitti Palace

• Cross the Arno to explore lush gardens, sculptures, and royal vibes
• Offers a peaceful break from the city streets and great panoramic views

🍷 What to Eat & Drink in Florence

• Bistecca alla Fiorentina – A legendary T-bone steak, grilled rare
• Ribollita – A hearty Tuscan soup with bread, beans, and vegetables
• Crostini with chicken liver pâté – Classic local starter
• Cantucci with Vin Santo – Almond biscuits dipped in sweet dessert wine
• Pair it all with a glass of Chianti Classico or Brunello di Montalcino

✨ Local Gems to Discover

• Piazzale Michelangelo – Sunset views that will stay with you forever
• San Lorenzo Market – Leather goods, food stalls, and local flair
• Santa Croce Basilica – Tombs of Michelangelo, Galileo, Machiavelli
• Oltrarno neighborhood – Artisans, cool cafés, and a slower, bohemian vibe

🎯 Florence Travel Tips

✅ Most sights are walkable—comfortable shoes are a must
✅ The city is busiest from late spring to early fall—visit in shoulder seasons if you can
✅ Museums are closed on Mondays
✅ Make restaurant reservations—especially for dinner at popular spots

@ b8af284d:f82c91dd

„Die Politik ist die Kunst des Möglichen, nicht die Kunst des Idealen.“

Henry Kissinger

Liebe Abonnenten,

in der Welt der Geopolitik gibt es zwei Ideen-Pole. Auf der einen Seite des Spektrums befindet sich die „Realpolitik“. Moralische oder ethische Faktoren spielen hier eine untergeordnete Rolle. Im Vordergrund steht der pragmatische Nutzen. Als Vertreter dieser Form der Außenpolitik gilt zum Beispiel Henry Kissinger, der 1972 die Aufnahme von diplomatischen Beziehungen zum maoistischen China einfädelte, obwohl sich ideologisch beide Staaten spinnefeind waren. Das Ergebnis war ein Erdbeben der internationalen Ordnung: Die USA entzogen Taiwan den “Alleinvertretungsanspruch” und beendeten offiziell die Beziehungen zu Taipeh. Die Sowjetunion wurde geschwächt, der Vietnamkrieg konnte beendet werden. Aus der Annäherung zwischen Mao und Nixon wuchs “ChinAmerica” - eine enge Verflechtung der beiden größten Volkswirtschaften der Welt.

Am anderen Ende des Spektrums lässt eine „werteorientierte Außenpolitik” ansiedeln, wie sie zuletzt die grüne Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock vertrat oder besser versuchte. Alles, was keine lupenreine liberale Demokratie ist, gehört irgendwie eingedämmt und am besten sollte man auch keinen Handel damit treiben. Das Problem: Bigotterie. Wenn man kein Gas mehr aus Russland möchte, muss man es aus Katar kaufen. Der säkulare Machthaber Assad war böse, aber nun hofiert man dann Nachfolger und Islamist Abu Mohammed al-Dscholani. (Diese Woche hat Baerbock nach 13 Jahren wieder eine deutsche Botschaft in Damaskus eröffnet.) Am Ende nämlich gibt es doch nicht so viele Wertepartner auf der Welt:

Und mit Donald Trump hat eine Realpolitik auf Steroiden begonnen. Alles scheint plötzlich möglich, solange der Preis stimmt. Die Welt gibt es im Sonderangebot.

Diese Ausgabe ist eine geopolitische Rundschau über die aktuellen globalen Konfliktherde und ihre potenziellen Auswirkungen auf die Märkte. Wir starten in der Nachbarschaft:

Türkei

Erdogan hatte 2023 so ziemlich alles erreicht - er war mit dem Gründer der modernen Türkei, Kemal Atatürk, gleichgezogen (zumindest was Dauer und Einfluss betrifft). Die Lira stabilisierte sich, die Inflation kühlte sich etwas ab. Mit der Verhaftung des Istanbuler Bürgermeister Ekrem İmamoğlu ist damit erst einmal Schluss. Die Währung rauschte in den Keller. Die Region um Istanbul steht für knapp die Hälfte der Wirtschaftsleistung des Landes, knapp ein Drittel der Bevölkerung lebt um das Marmarameer. Dort toben derzeit die schwersten Proteste seit Gezi im Jahr 2013. Erdogan wirft seinem Widersacher vor, ein Hochschuldiplom gefälscht zu haben und deswegen gar nicht für das Amt zugelassen sei.

Als „Wertepartner“ gilt die Türkei schon seit langem nicht mehr. Türkische Truppen halten zudem den Norden Syriens besetzt. Trotzdem ist die Kritik an Erdogan derzeit relativ leise. Im Gegenteil: Der EU sei es wichtig, Ankara in der Koalition der Willigen zu halten.

Warum? Die Türkei hat die zweitgrößte Armee der NATO und kontrolliert derzeit die beiden letzten noch funktionierenden Gas-Pipelines von Russland in die EU. Ein wie auch immer gearteter Frieden in der Ukraine kann ohne Ankara nicht stattfinden. Erdogan weiß das, und nutzt die Gunst der Stunde.

In BlingBling steckt viel Arbeit. Wenn Du diese unterstützen willst, freue ich mich über ein Bezahl-Abo! Dafür gibt es Texte wie diesen in voller Länge, Zugang zum Archiv und einmal im Monat einen Investment-Report. Außerdem erhältst Du Zugang zum exklusiven “Subscriber Chat”. Du kannst das auch problemlos einen Monat für sieben Euro testen.

Ukraine

Wer sich durch die deutsche Presselandschaft bewegt, glaubt derzeit folgendes: Trump hat die Ukraine verraten und Europa im Stich gelassen. Putin bedroht das Baltikum und Polen. Europa muss also für den Krieg rüsten.

Worum es wirlich geht: Die EU ist der eigentliche Verlierer dieses Krieges, und muss nun irgendwie gesichtswahrend aus diesem Schlamassel herauskommen. Das geht am ehesten durch martialische Gesten und einem Billionen-Paket. Mehr dazu hier:

Panzer statt Autos - Wie Deutschland in die Kriegswirtschaft schlittert, und dabei seine Freiheit und Wohlstand aufs Spiel setzt.

Tatsächlich laufen schon seit Wochen zwischen Washington und Moskau Gespräche im saudi-arabischen Riad. Bis zu einem Friedensschluss ist es noch ein weiter Weg, aber es geht in kleinen Schritten vorwärts: eine 30-tägige Feuerpause, Gefangenenaustausch, ein Einstellen der Kämpfe im Schwarzen Meer. Vor allem letzteres wird Auswirkungen auf die internationalen Rohstoffmärkte haben: fallende Preise von Dünger, Weizen, Kohle. Manche russischen Banken werden wieder an das internationale Zahlungssystem SWIFT angeschlossen. Teil eines dauerhaften Friedens wird ein Abkommen über die Ausbeutung der Seltenen Erden sein.

Teilen

Naher Osten

Der Konflikt ist emotional wie moralisch hoch aufgeladen. So dramatisch das Leid der Zivilbevölkerung auf beiden Seiten ist - für den Rest der Welt spielt der Konflikt wirtschaftlich eine untergeordnete Rolle. Erst in seinen Ableitungen hat er größeren Einfluss. In der aktuellen Trump-Administration wird derzeit vieles neu gedacht. Dazu gehört auch eine Neuordnung des Nahen Ostens. So absurd der Gedanke von blühenden Landschaften in Gaza auch gerade erscheint - ein Ausgleich mit dem Iran und Schaffung eines gemeinsamen Wirtschaftsraums, der Israels Hightech-Ökonomie, den Energiereichtum der arabischen Halbinsel mit dem Bevölkerungsreichtum des Nahen Ostens kombiniert, ist nicht unrealistisch. Folgendes Interview mit dem Trump-Unterhändler Steve Witkoff ist dazu sehr hörenswert.

Gleichzeitig hat die neue Trump-Administration ihre Unschuld verloren, indem sie die Houthi-Rebellen bombardierte. Die vom Iran unterstützte Schiitenmiliz hat seit Monaten den Schiffverkehr am Eingang des Roten Meeres unterbunden, was insbesondere in Europa zu höheren Preisen führte. Manche Analysten warnen: Die Falken in Washington könnten sich durchsetzen und einen Krieg gegen den Iran beginnen, zu dem Israel seit Jahren drängt. Dagegen spricht: Trump braucht dringend niedrige Ölpreise, um die Inflation zu dämpfen. Dann erst kann die FED die Zinsen senken. Niedrige Zinsen sind notwendig, da die USA dieses Jahr über ein Drittel ihrer Schulden refinanzieren müssen.

Mehr dazu hier:

Der Mar-a-Largo-Accord - Der große Kassensturz in den USA ist in vollem Gange und bringt Erstaunliches ans Licht. Eine neue Finanzordnung entsteht

Arktis

Im Norden des Planeten schwelt seit Jahren ein Konflikt, der erst kürzlich durch Trumps Angebot, Grönland zu kaufen, ins Bewusstsein rückte. Es geht um Öl, Gas, Uran und seltene Erden, die vor allem auf der zu Dänemark gehörenden Insel vorkommen. JD Vance war am Freitag zu Besuch und betonte nochmals:

“We have to have it. And I think we will have it.”

Grönland dürfte Teil der Verhandlungsmasse und des “great deal” mit Russland sein: Moskau erhält in der Ukraine, was es beansprucht (die besetzten Gebiete plus Odessa), die USA erhalten dafür freie Hand in diesem Teil der Arktis. Warum aber ist der hohe Norden plötzlich so interessant geworden?

Im Paid-Teil geht es außerdem um die Taiwan-Frage und die Auswirkungen auf die Märkte Gold, Öl und Aktien.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Und plötzlich weißt du:
Es ist Zeit, etwas Neues zu beginnen
und dem Zauber des Anfangs zu vertrauen.
Meister Eckhart

Schwarz, rot, gold leuchtet es im Kopf des Newsletters der deutschen Bundesregierung, der mir freitags ins Postfach flattert. Rot, gelb und grün werden daneben sicher noch lange vielzitierte Farben sein, auch wenn diese nie geleuchtet haben. Die Ampel hat sich gerade selber den Stecker gezogen – und hinterlässt einen wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Trümmerhaufen.

Mit einem bemerkenswerten Timing hat die deutsche Regierungskoalition am Tag des «Comebacks» von Donald Trump in den USA endlich ihr Scheitern besiegelt. Während der eine seinen Sieg bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen feierte, erwachten die anderen jäh aus ihrer Selbsthypnose rund um Harris-Hype und Trump-Panik – mit teils erschreckenden Auswüchsen. Seit Mittwoch werden die Geschicke Deutschlands nun von einer rot-grünen Minderheitsregierung «geleitet» und man steuert auf Neuwahlen zu.

Das Kindergarten-Gehabe um zwei konkurrierende Wirtschaftsgipfel letzte Woche war bereits bezeichnend. In einem Strategiepapier gestand Finanzminister Lindner außerdem den «Absturz Deutschlands» ein und offenbarte, dass die wirtschaftlichen Probleme teilweise von der Ampel-Politik «vorsätzlich herbeigeführt» worden seien.

Lindner und weitere FDP-Minister wurden also vom Bundeskanzler entlassen. Verkehrs- und Digitalminister Wissing trat flugs aus der FDP aus; deshalb darf er nicht nur im Amt bleiben, sondern hat zusätzlich noch das Justizministerium übernommen. Und mit Jörg Kukies habe Scholz «seinen Lieblingsbock zum Obergärtner», sprich: Finanzminister befördert, meint Norbert Häring.

Es gebe keine Vertrauensbasis für die weitere Zusammenarbeit mit der FDP, hatte der Kanzler erklärt, Lindner habe zu oft sein Vertrauen gebrochen. Am 15. Januar 2025 werde er daher im Bundestag die Vertrauensfrage stellen, was ggf. den Weg für vorgezogene Neuwahlen freimachen würde.

Apropos Vertrauen: Über die Hälfte der Bundesbürger glauben, dass sie ihre Meinung nicht frei sagen können. Das ging erst kürzlich aus dem diesjährigen «Freiheitsindex» hervor, einer Studie, die die Wechselwirkung zwischen Berichterstattung der Medien und subjektivem Freiheitsempfinden der Bürger misst. «Beim Vertrauen in Staat und Medien zerreißt es uns gerade», kommentierte dies der Leiter des Schweizer Unternehmens Media Tenor, das die Untersuchung zusammen mit dem Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach durchführt.

«Die absolute Mehrheit hat absolut die Nase voll», titelte die Bild angesichts des «Ampel-Showdowns». Die Mehrheit wolle Neuwahlen und die Grünen sollten zuerst gehen, lasen wir dort.

Dass «Insolvenzminister» Robert Habeck heute seine Kandidatur für das Kanzleramt verkündet hat, kann nur als Teil der politmedialen Realitätsverweigerung verstanden werden. Wer allerdings denke, schlimmer als in Zeiten der Ampel könne es nicht mehr werden, sei reichlich optimistisch, schrieb Uwe Froschauer bei Manova. Und er kenne Friedrich Merz schlecht, der sich schon jetzt rhetorisch auf seine Rolle als oberster Feldherr Deutschlands vorbereite.

Was also tun? Der Schweizer Verein «Losdemokratie» will eine Volksinitiative lancieren, um die Bestimmung von Parlamentsmitgliedern per Los einzuführen. Das Losverfahren sorge für mehr Demokratie, denn als Alternative zum Wahlverfahren garantiere es eine breitere Beteiligung und repräsentativere Parlamente. Ob das ein Weg ist, sei dahingestellt.

In jedem Fall wird es notwendig sein, unsere Bemühungen um Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung zu verstärken. Mehr Unabhängigkeit von staatlichen und zentralen Institutionen – also die Suche nach dezentralen Lösungsansätzen – gehört dabei sicher zu den Möglichkeiten. Das gilt sowohl für jede/n Einzelne/n als auch für Entitäten wie die alternativen Medien.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

E-cash are coupons or tokens for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin debt notes that the mint issues. The e-cash states, essentially, "IoU 2900 sats".

They're redeemable for Bitcoin on Lightning (hard money), and therefore can be used as cash (softer money), so long as the mint has a good reputation. That means that they're less fungible than Lightning because the e-cash from one mint can be more or less valuable than the e-cash from another. If a mint is buggy, offline, or disappears, then the e-cash is unreedemable.

It also means that e-cash is more anonymous than Lightning, and that the sender and receiver's wallets don't need to be online, to transact. Nutzaps now add the possibility of parking transactions one level farther out, on a relay. The same relays that cannot keep npub profiles and follow lists consistent will now do monetary transactions.

What we then have is * a transaction on a relay that triggers * a transaction on a mint that triggers * a transaction on Lightning that triggers * a transaction on Bitcoin.

Which means that every relay that stores the nuts is part of a wildcat banking system. Which is fine, but relay operators should consider whether they wish to carry the associated risks and liabilities. They should also be aware that they should implement the appropriate features in their relay, such as expiration tags (nuts rot after 2 weeks), and to make sure that only expired nuts are deleted.

There will be plenty of specialized relays for this, so don't feel pressured to join in, and research the topic carefully, for yourself.

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/60.md https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/61.md

@ c3c7122c:607731d7

Help!

Calling all El Salvador Nostriches! If you currently live in SV, I need your help and am offering several bounties (0.001, 0.01, and 0.1 BTC).

In Brief

In short, I am pursuing El Salvador citizenship by birthright (through my grandmother). I’ve struggled to progress because her name varies on different documents. I need someone to help me push harder to get past this barrier, or connect me with information or people who can work on my behalf. I am offering:

• 0.001 BTC (100k sats) for information that will help me progress from my current situation
• 0.01 BTC (1 MM sats) to get me in touch with someone that is more impactful than the immigration lawyer I already spoke with
• 0.1 BTC (10 MM sats) if your efforts help me obtain citizenship for me or my father

Background

My grandma married my grandfather (an American Marine) and moved to the states where my father was born. I have some official and unofficial documents where her name varies in spelling, order of first/middle name, and addition of her father’s last name. So every doc basically has a different name for her. I was connected with an english-speaking immigration lawyer in SV who hit a dead end when searching for her official ID because the city hall in her city had burned down so there was no record of her info. He gave up at that point. I find it odd that it was so easy to change your name back then, but they are more strict now with the records from that time.

I believe SV citizenship is my birthright and have several personal reasons for pursuing this. I want someone to act on my behalf who will try harder to work the system (by appeal, loophole, or even bribe if I have to). If you are local and can help me with this, I’d greatly appreciate any efforts you make.

Cheers!

Corey San Diego

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

---

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

---

Am 18. März 1924 schenkte meine Großmutter ihren Töchtern einen kleinen Bruder. Weil sein Vater fürchtete, der Junge könnte unter seinen vier Schwestern verweichlichen, schickte er den Kleinen zu Wochenendfreizeiten einer örtlichen Pfadfindergruppe. Ein Weltkriegsveteran veranstaltete dort mit den Kindern Geländespiele quer durch die schlesischen Wälder. Man lernte, Essbares zu finden, Pilze zu bestimmen, sich im Freien zu orientieren und Feuer zu machen.

Bald wurde deutlich, dass der Heranwachsende auch nicht mehr in den Blockflötenkreis seiner Schwestern und ihrer Freundinnen passte. Das Umfeld befürwortete, sein besonderes musikalisches Talent auf das Klavierspiel und das Flügelhorn zu richten. Kontakte bei der anschließenden Kirchenmusik mündeten schließlich in den elterlichen Entschluss, den nun 14-jährigen in ein Musikschulinternat zu schicken.

Es begann der Zweite Weltkrieg

Ein Jahr später, das erste Heimweh hatte sich langsam beruhigt, änderten sich die Verhältnisse schlagartig. Es begann der Zweite Weltkrieg. Mitschüler unter den jungen Musikern erfuhren, dass ihre älteren Brüder nun Soldaten werden mussten. Noch hielt sich die Gemeinschaft der jetzt 15-jährigen im Internat aber an einer Hoffnung fest: Bis sie selbst in das wehrfähige Alter kommen würden, müsste der Krieg längst beendet sein. In dieser Stimmungslage setzten sie ihre Ausbildung fort.

Es kam anders. Für den 18-jährigen erfolgte die befürchtete Einberufung in Form des „Gestellungsbefehls“. Entsprechend seiner Fähigkeiten sah man ihn zunächst für ein Musikkorps vor und schickte ihn zu einer ersten Grundausbildung nach Südfrankreich. Bei Nizza fand er sich nun plötzlich zwischen Soldaten, die Handgranaten in das Mittelmeer warfen, um Fische zu fangen. Es war das erste Mal, dass er fürchtete, infolge Explosionslärms sein Gehör zu verlieren. In den kommenden Jahren sollte er oft die Ohren zu- und den Mund offenhalten müssen, um sich wenigstens die Möglichkeit der angezielten Berufsausübung zu erhalten – wenn es überhaupt je dazu kommen würde.

---

DIE FRIEDENSTAUBE FLIEGT AUCH IN IHR POSTFACH!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht). Sie wollen der Genossenschaft beitreten oder uns unterstützen? Mehr Infos hier oder am Ende des Textes.

---

Schon nach kurzer Zeit änderte sich die Befehlslage wieder. Der Musikstudent wurde nun zum Infanteristen und nach Russland an die Front verbracht. Vor ihm lagen jetzt drei Kriegsjahre: Gewalt, Dreck, Gewehrkugeln, Panzerschlachten, Granatsplitter, Luftangriffe, Entbehrungen, Hunger, Kälte, sieben Verwundungen, Blut und Schmerzen, Sterbende überall, Tote, Schreiende. Verzweiflung. Sorgen. Ängste. Todesangst. Zurückweichen? Verboten! Und die stets klare Ansage dazu: Wer nicht da vorne gegen den Feind um sein Leben kämpft, dem wird es ganz sicher da hinten von den eigenen Kameraden genommen.

Ein gewährter Fronturlaub 1944 versprach glückliche Momente. Zurück zu den Eltern, zurück zu den Schwestern, zurück nach Freiburg. Doch die Familie war nicht zu Hause, die Türen verschlossen. Eine Nachbarin öffnete ihr Fenster und rief dem Ratlosen zu: „Beeil‘ dich! Renn‘ zum Friedhof. Der Vater ist tot. Sie sind alle bei der Beerdigung!“ Wieder hieß es, qualvoll Abschied nehmen. Zurück an die Front.

Nach einem weiteren russischen Winter brach sich unübersehbar die Erkenntnis Bahn, dass der Krieg nun seinem Ende zugehe. Doch das Bemühen im Rückzug, sich mit einem versprengten Haufen irgendwie Richtung Heimat orientieren zu können, wurde doppelt jäh unterbrochen. Fanatische Vorgesetzte befahlen die längst Geschlagenen wieder gen Osten. Kurz darauf fielen sie heranrückenden russischen Truppen in die Hände. 

Kriegsgefangenschaft: Tabakration gegen Brot

Drei Jahre dem Tod entgangen, schwer verletzt und erschöpft war der 21-jährige also nun ein Kriegsgefangener. Jetzt lagen drei Jahre russischer Kriegsgefangenschaft vor ihm. Ständig war unklar, wie es weiterginge. Unmöglich jedenfalls, sich noch wie ein Pfadfinder aus den Wäldern zu ernähren. Es begannen die Jahre des Schlafens auf Brettern, die Zeit der ziellosen Zugtransporte an unbekannte Orte. Niemand sprach. Nur der Sonnenstand machte klar: Es ging nie Richtung Heimat, sondern immer weiter nach Osten. Weil der Blechbläser nicht rauchte, konnte er seine Tabakration gegen Brot tauschen. So überlebte er auch die Zeit des Hungers und der Morde in den Lagern, die Horrorbilder der nachts Erschlagenen und in die Latrinen geworfenen Toten, der sinnlosen Zwangsarbeiten und der allgegenwärtigen Wanzen. Wer versuchte zu fliehen, der wurde erschossen und sein Körper zur Abschreckung in den Fangdrähten belassen. Im Sommer stanken die dort verwesenden Leichen, wenn nicht Vögel sie rechtzeitig gefressen hatten.

Als der 24-jährige schließlich sechs Jahre nach seiner Einberufung aus russischer Kriegsgefangenschaft entlassen wurde, gab es kein Zurück mehr in seine schlesische Heimat. Abgemagert reiste er der vertriebenen Mutter nach, die mit seinen Schwestern und Millionen anderen Flüchtlingen im Westen Deutschlands verteilt worden war. Kraft Ordnungsverfügung wohnte sie jetzt im sauerländischen Bad Laasphe in einem schimmligen Garagenanbau. Als ihn ein Passant auf dieser Reise morgens allein, nur mit einem Becher an der Schnur um den Hals, auf Krücken durch Berlin ziehen sah, gab er ihm schweigend sein Butterbrot.

Der kleine, sanfte Junge aus dem schlesischen Freiburg hat danach noch 60 Jahre gelebt. Es dauerte zunächst sechs Jahre, bis er wieder kräftig genug war, ein Instrument zu spielen. 30-jährig saß er dann endlich in einem Orchester und begann ein normales Berufsleben. Aber sein Körper und seine Seele waren für immer aus jeder Normalität gerissen.

Irgendwo in Russland war ihm die linke Hüfte so versteift worden, dass sich seine Beine im Liegen an Wade und Schienbein überkreuzten. Er musste also stets den Oberkörper vorbeugen, um überhaupt laufen zu können. Über die Jahrzehnte verzog sich so sein gesamter Knochenbau. Jeder Tag brachte neue orthopädische Probleme und Schmerzen. Ärzte, Masseure, Physiotherapeuten, Schmerzmittel und Spezialausrüstungen aller Art prägten die Tagesabläufe. Asymmetrisch standen seine Schuhe nebeneinander, die ein Spezialschuster ihm mit erhöhter Sohle und Seitenstabilisierung am Knöchel fertigte. Sessel oder Sofas waren ihm nicht nutzbar, da er nur auf einem Spezialstuhl mit halb abgesenkter Sitzfläche Ruhe fand. Auf fremden Stühlen konnte er nur deren Vorderkante nutzen.

"In den Nächten schrie er im Schlaf"

Und auch wenn er sich ohne Krankheitstage bis zuletzt durch seinen Berufsalltag kämpfte, so gab es doch viele Tage voller entsetzlicher Schmerzen, wenn sich seine verdrehte Wirbelsäule zur Migräne in den Kopf bohrte. Bei alledem hörte man ihn allerdings niemals über sein Schicksal klagen. Er ertrug den ganzen Wahnsinn mit einer unbeschreiblichen Duldsamkeit. Nur in den Nächten schrie er bisweilen im Schlaf. In einem seiner Alpträume fürchtete er, Menschen getötet zu haben. Aber auch das erzählte er jahrzehntelang einzig seiner Frau.

Als sich einige Jahre vor seinem Tod der orthopädische Zustand weiter verschlechterte, konsultierte er einen Operateur, um Entlastungsmöglichkeiten zu erörtern. Der legte ihn auf eine Untersuchungsliege und empfahl, Verbesserungsversuche zu unterlassen, weil sie die Lage allenfalls verschlechtern konnten. In dem Moment, als er sich von der Liege erheben sollte, wurde deutlich, dass ihm dies nicht gelang. Die gereichte Hand, um ihn hochzuziehen, ignorierte er. Stattdessen rieb er seinen Rumpf ganz alleine eine quälend lange Minute über die Fläche, bis er endlich einen Winkel fand, um sich selbst in die Senkrechte zu bugsieren. Sich nicht auf andere verlassen, war sein Überlebenskonzept. Jahre später, als sich sein Zustand noch weiter verschlechtert hatte, lächelte er über seine Behinderung: „Ich hätte schon vor 60 Jahren tot auf einem Acker in Russland liegen können.“ Alles gehe irgendwann vorbei, tröstete er sich. Das war das andere Überlebenskonzept: liebevoll, friedfertig und sanft anderen gegenüber, unerbittlich mit sich selbst.

Sechs Monate vor seinem Tod saß er morgens regungslos auf seinem Spezialstuhl. Eine Altenpflegerin fand ihn und schlug Alarm. Mit allen Kunstgriffen der medizinischen Technik wurde er noch einmal in das Leben zurückkatapultiert. Aber seine Kräfte waren erschöpft. Es schob sich das Grauen der Vergangenheit zwischen ihn und die Welt. Bettlägerig kreiste er um sich selbst, erkannte niemanden und starrte mit weit offenen Augen an die Decke. „Die Russen schmeißen wieder Brandbomben!“, war einer seiner letzten Sätze.

Der kleine Junge aus Schlesien ist nicht zu weich geraten. Er hat sein Leid mit unbeugsamer Duldsamkeit ertragen. Er trug es wohl als Strafe für das Leid, das er anderen anzutun genötigt worden war. An seinem Geburtstag blühen immer die Magnolien. In diesem Jahr zum hundertsten Mal.

Dieser Text wurde am 23.3.2024 erstveröffentlicht auf „eigentümlich frei“.

---

Carlos A. Gebauer studierte Philosophie, Neuere Geschichte, Sprach-, Rechts- und Musikwissenschaften in Düsseldorf, Bayreuth und Bonn. Sein juristisches Referendariat absolvierte er in Düsseldorf, u.a. mit Wahlstationen bei der Landesrundfunkanstalt NRW, bei der Spezialkammer für Kassenarztrecht des Sozialgerichtes Düsseldorf und bei dem Gnadenbeauftragten der Staatsanwaltschaft Düsseldorf.

Er war unter anderem als Rechtsanwalt und Notarvertreter bis er im November 2003 vom nordrhein-westfälischen Justizministerium zum Richter am Anwaltsgericht für den Bezirk der Rechtsanwaltskammer Düsseldorf ernannt wurde. Seit April 2012 arbeitet er in der Düsseldorfer Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Lindenau, Prior & Partner. Im Juni 2015 wählte ihn die Friedrich-August-von-Hayek-Gesellschaft zu ihrem Stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden. Seit Dezember 2015 ist er Richter im Zweiten Senat des Anwaltsgerichtshofes NRW.

1995 hatte er parallel zu seiner anwaltlichen Tätigkeit mit dem Verfassen gesellschaftspolitischer und juristischer Texte begonnen. Diese erschienen seither unter anderem in der Neuen Juristischen Wochenschrift (NJW), der Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, der Freien Presse Chemnitz, dem „Schweizer Monat“ oder dem Magazin für politische Kultur CICERO. Seit dem Jahr 2005 ist Gebauer ständiger Kolumnist und Autor des Magazins „eigentümlich frei“.

Gebauer glaubt als puristischer Liberaler unverbrüchlich an die sittliche Verpflichtung eines jeden einzelnen, sein Leben für sich selbst und für seine Mitmenschen verantwortlich zu gestalten; jede Fremdbestimmung durch Gesetze, staatliche Verwaltung, politischen Einfluss oder sonstige Gewalteinwirkung hat sich demnach auf ein ethisch vertretbares Minimum zu beschränken. Die Vorstellung eines europäischen Bundesstaates mit zentral detailsteuernder, supranationaler Staatsgewalt hält er für absurd und verfassungswidrig. 

\ Aktuelle Bücher:

Hayeks Warnung vor der Knechtschaft (2024) – hier im Handel

Das Prinzip Verantwortungslosigkeit (2023) – hier im Handel

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

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

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

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

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

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

---

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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Es ist besser, ein Licht zu entzünden, als auf die Dunkelheit zu schimpfen. Konfuzius

Die Bemühungen um Aufarbeitung der sogenannten Corona-Pandemie, um Aufklärung der Hintergründe, Benennung von Verantwortlichkeiten und das Ziehen von Konsequenzen sind durchaus nicht eingeschlafen. Das Interesse daran ist unter den gegebenen Umständen vielleicht nicht sonderlich groß, aber es ist vorhanden.

Der sächsische Landtag hat gestern die Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses zur Corona-Politik beschlossen. In einer Sondersitzung erhielt ein entsprechender Antrag der AfD-Fraktion die ausreichende Zustimmung, auch von einigen Abgeordneten des BSW.

In den Niederlanden wird Bill Gates vor Gericht erscheinen müssen. Sieben durch die Covid-«Impfstoffe» geschädigte Personen hatten Klage eingereicht. Sie werfen unter anderem Gates, Pfizer-Chef Bourla und dem niederländischen Staat vor, sie hätten gewusst, dass diese Präparate weder sicher noch wirksam sind.

Mit den mRNA-«Impfstoffen» von Pfizer/BioNTech befasst sich auch ein neues Buch. Darin werden die Erkenntnisse von Ärzten und Wissenschaftlern aus der Analyse interner Dokumente über die klinischen Studien der Covid-Injektion präsentiert. Es handelt sich um jene in den USA freigeklagten Papiere, die die Arzneimittelbehörde (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) 75 Jahre unter Verschluss halten wollte.

Ebenfalls Wissenschaftler und Ärzte, aber auch andere Experten organisieren als Verbundnetzwerk Corona-Solution kostenfreie Online-Konferenzen. Ihr Ziel ist es, «wissenschaftlich, demokratisch und friedlich» über Impfstoffe und Behandlungsprotokolle gegen SARS-CoV-2 aufzuklären und die Diskriminierung von Ungeimpften zu stoppen. Gestern fand eine weitere Konferenz statt. Ihr Thema: «Corona und modRNA: Von Toten, Lebenden und Physik lernen».

Aufgrund des Digital Services Acts (DSA) der Europäischen Union sei das Risiko groß, dass ihre Arbeit als «Fake-News» bezeichnet würde, so das Netzwerk. Staatlich unerwünschte wissenschaftliche Aufklärung müsse sich passende Kanäle zur Veröffentlichung suchen. Ihre Live-Streams seien deshalb zum Beispiel nicht auf YouTube zu finden.

Der vielfältige Einsatz für Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung wird sich nicht stummschalten lassen. Nicht einmal der Zensurmeister der EU, Deutschland, wird so etwas erreichen. Die frisch aktivierten «Trusted Flagger» dürften allerdings künftige Siege beim «Denunzianten-Wettbewerb» im Kontext des DSA zusätzlich absichern.

Wo sind die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit? Sicher gibt es sie. Aber die ideologische Gleichstellung von illegalen mit unerwünschten Äußerungen verfolgt offensichtlich eher das Ziel, ein derart elementares demokratisches Grundrecht möglichst weitgehend auszuhebeln. Vorwürfe wie «Hassrede», «Delegitimierung des Staates» oder «Volksverhetzung» werden heute inflationär verwendet, um Systemkritik zu unterbinden. Gegen solche Bestrebungen gilt es, sich zu wehren.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum dritten Geburtstag, liebe Denk Bar! Wieso zum dritten? Das war doch 2022 und jetzt sind wir im Jahr 2024, oder? Ja, das ist schon richtig, aber bei Geburtstagen erinnere ich mich immer auch an meinen Vater, und der behauptete oft, der erste sei ja schließlich der Tag der Geburt selber und den müsse man natürlich mitzählen. Wo er recht hat, hat er nunmal recht. Konsequenterweise wird also heute dieser Blog an seinem dritten Geburtstag zwei Jahre alt.

Das ist ein Grund zum Feiern, wie ich finde. Einerseits ganz einfach, weil es dafür gar nicht genug Gründe geben kann. «Das Leben sind zwei Tage», lautet ein gängiger Ausdruck hier in Andalusien. In der Tat könnte es so sein, auch wenn wir uns im Alltag oft genug von der Routine vereinnahmen lassen.

Seit dem Start der Denk Bar vor zwei Jahren ist unglaublich viel passiert. Ebenso wie die zweieinhalb Jahre davor, und all jenes war letztlich auch der Auslöser dafür, dass ich begann, öffentlich zu schreiben. Damals notierte ich:

«Seit einigen Jahren erscheint unser öffentliches Umfeld immer fragwürdiger, widersprüchlicher und manchmal schier unglaublich - jede Menge Anlass für eigene Recherchen und Gedanken, ganz einfach mit einer Portion gesundem Menschenverstand.»

Wir erleben den sogenannten «großen Umbruch», einen globalen Coup, den skrupellose Egoisten clever eingefädelt haben und seit ein paar Jahren knallhart – aber nett verpackt – durchziehen, um buchstäblich alles nach ihrem Gusto umzukrempeln. Die Gelegenheit ist ja angeblich günstig und muss genutzt werden.

Nie hätte ich mir träumen lassen, dass ich so etwas jemals miterleben müsste. Die Bosheit, mit der ganz offensichtlich gegen die eigene Bevölkerung gearbeitet wird, war früher für mich unvorstellbar. Mein (Rest-) Vertrauen in alle möglichen Bereiche wie Politik, Wissenschaft, Justiz, Medien oder Kirche ist praktisch komplett zerstört. Einen «inneren Totalschaden» hatte ich mal für unsere Gesellschaften diagnostiziert.

Was mich vielleicht am meisten erschreckt, ist zum einen das Niveau der Gleichschaltung, das weltweit erreicht werden konnte, und zum anderen die praktisch totale Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Haben wir das tatsächlich mit uns machen lassen?? Unfassbar! Aber das Werkzeug «Angst» ist sehr mächtig und funktioniert bis heute.

Zum Glück passieren auch positive Dinge und neue Perspektiven öffnen sich. Für viele Menschen waren und sind die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre ein Augenöffner. Sie sehen «Querdenken» als das, was es ist: eine Tugend.

Auch die immer ernsteren Zensurbemühungen sind letztlich nur ein Zeichen der Schwäche, wo Argumente fehlen. Sie werden nicht verhindern, dass wir unsere Meinung äußern, unbequeme Fragen stellen und dass die Wahrheit peu à peu ans Licht kommt. Es gibt immer Mittel und Wege, auch für uns.

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ 10fe3f70:3489c810

contract-drafting #agreement-drafting #learn-drafting #keep-learning

I am a lawyer and a teacher. I am interested in learning new things every day.

I am from India, and have studied in a reputed law school in Delhi. I have long experience of working as in-house counsels to some reputed organisations.

My present goal is to teach drafting of contracts. What I will teach is some basic skills required by students to draft contracts.

I did some freelance online teaching during Covid Pandemic, and found that students are very interested in learning the craft. But, I also understood that they may not have enough free time to learn due to busy schedule.

If you are interested, you can access my curated playlist on Youtube

Keep watching this space, if you wish to know more...

Lessons on Contract Drafting

1. Contract Drafting - An Introduction
2. ...

@ 09fbf8f3:fa3d60f0

功能很简单的网站，无广告、无任何付费项目，漫画全部免费。

荤素搭配。

唯一的缺点就是有点慢，看了下网站使用的是cloudflare网站加速，国内效果差了一点，加个🪜就好了。

关键词mycomic

官网：https://mycomic.com

@ bcbb3e40:a494e501

|| |:-:| |WAJDA, Andrzej; Cenizas y diamantes, 1958|

Presentamos una nueva reseña cinematográfica, y en esta ocasión hemos elegido «Cenizas y diamantes», una película polaca del célebre y prolífico director Andrzej Wajda (1926-2016), estrenada en el año 1958. Se trata de uno de los grandes clásicos del cine polaco. El filme refleja una etapa dramática desde la perspectiva histórica para la nación polaca, como es el final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, a raíz de la capitulación alemana del 8 de mayo de 1945. El contexto en el que se desarrolla se ambienta en la celebración del final de la guerra con el aplastante triunfo de la URSS, con las tropas soviéticas ocupando toda la Europa oriental, y en particular Polonia, que vive un momento de oscuridad e incertidumbre. El protagonista, Maciek Chełmicki (interpretado magistralmente por Zbigniew Cybulski (1927-1967), apodado el «James Dean polaco»), es un joven nacionalista polaco, de orientación anticomunista, que se ve implicado en un complot urdido para asesinar a un líder comunista local. Maciek opera desde la clandestinidad, bajo el grupo Armia Krajowa (AK), el Ejército Nacional polaco, una organización de resistencia, primero contra los alemanes y, posteriormente, contra los soviéticos. Durante el metraje, se plantea una dicotomía permanente entre la libertad entendida como la defensa de la soberanía de Polonia, desde posturas nacionalistas, y quienes consideran la ocupación soviética como algo positivo. Estas circunstancias atrapan al protagonista, que se ve envuelto en una espiral de violencia y traición.

Maciek Chełmicki, nuestro protagonista, cuenta con todas las características del héroe trágico, pues tiene en sus manos una serie de acciones que comprometen el futuro de un pueblo, que consiste en cumplir la misión que le ha sido encomendada, pero en su camino se cruza una joven, Krystyna, una joven camarera de un hotel de la que se enamora en ese mismo día. Este último hecho sirve de punto de partida para todas las dudas, dilemas y dicotomías a las que hacemos referencia. Hay un dilema moral evidente en un mundo en ruinas, devastado por la guerra, la muerte y el nihilismo. En este sentido Wajda nos muestra un lenguaje cinematográfico muy evidente, a través de una técnica expresionista muy depurada, con el uso del blanco y negro, los contrastes generados por las sombras y la atmósfera opresiva que transmite angustia, desesperación y vulnerabilidad de los protagonistas. Además también destilan una fuerte carga emocional, donde no están exentos elementos poéticos y un poderoso lirismo.

|| |:-:| |Maciek Chełmicki, el protagonista.|

Hay elementos simbólicos que no podemos obviar, y que contribuyen a consolidar el análisis que venimos haciendo, como, por ejemplo, la estética del protagonista, con unas gafas oscuras, que actúan como una suerte de barrera frente al mundo que le rodea, como parte del anonimato tras el cual el joven Maciek vive de forma introspectiva su propio drama particular y el de toda una nación.

|| |:-:| |NITOGLIA, Curzio; En el mar de la nada: Metafísica y nihilismo a prueba en la posmodernidad; Hipérbola Janus, 2023|

Hay una escena especialmente poderosa, y casi mítica, en la que los dos jóvenes protagonistas, Maciek y Krystina, se encuentran entre las ruinas de una Iglesia, en la que se destaca en primer plano, ocupando buena parte de la pantalla, la imagen de un Cristo invertido sobre un crucifijo, donde también se encuentran dos cuerpos colgados hacia abajo en una estampa que refleja la devastación moral y espiritual de toda una época. De hecho, la imagen del crucifijo invertido refleja el máximo punto de subversión y profanación de lo sagrado, y que en el caso concreto de la película viene a representar la destrucción del orden moral y de valores cristianos que la propia guerra ha provocado. Polonia es una nación profundamente católica, convertida al Cristianismo en el 966 a raíz de la conversión del príncipe Miecislao I, contribuyendo de manera decisiva a la formación de la identidad nacional polaca. El catolicismo siempre ha sido un medio de cohesión y defensa frente a las influencias extranjeras y la ocupación de terceros países, una constante en la historia del país, como el que ilustra la propia película con la URSS. En este sentido, la imagen de una Iglesia en ruinas, el lugar donde se encuentra representado el principio de lo sagrado e inviolable, supone una forma de perversión de todo principio de redención y salvación frente a la tragedia, y al mismo tiempo viene a significar que la Tradición ha sido abandonada y pervertida. En la misma línea, el protagonista, Maciek, se encuentra atrapado en una espiral de violencia a través de sus actos terroristas perpetrados contra la autoridad soviética que ocupa su país. Los dos cuerpos anónimos que cuelgan boca abajo, de forma grotesca, también participan de este caos y desequilibrio de un orden dislocado, son parte de la deshumanización y el nihilismo que todo lo impregna.

|| |:-:| |Maciek y Krystina en una iglesia en ruinas|

Como ya hemos mencionado, la película se encuentra plagada de paradojas y dicotomías, en las que nuestro protagonista, el joven rebelde e inconformista, debe elegir permanentemente, en unas decisiones que resultan trascendentales para su futuro y el de la propia nación. La figura femenina que irrumpe en su vida, y que representa un principio disruptivo que provoca una fractura interior y una crisis, le suscita una toma de conciencia de su propia situación y le fuerza a tomar un camino entre la «felicidad», del «amor», la «esperanza» y la «vida», que le permita superar la deriva nihilista y autodestructiva de la lucha clandestina, la cual le aboca a un destino trágico (que no vamos a desentrañar para no hacer spoiler). En relación al propio título de la película, «Cenizas y diamantes», basada en el poema del poeta y dramaturgo polaco Cyprian Norwid (1821-1883) y en la novela del autor, también polaco, Jerzy Andrzejewski (1909-1983), nos destaca la dualidad de los dos elementos que lo componen, y que definen el contraste entre el mundo sombrío y oscuro (Cenizas) y la esperanza y la luz que representa susodicha figura femenina (diamantes). La segunda alternativa parece un imposible, una quimera irrealizable que se pliega ante un Destino implacable, irreversible y cruel.

En consecuencia, y a la luz de los elementos expuestos, podemos decir que se nos presentan dilemas propios de la filosofía existencialista, que conoce su punto álgido en esos años, con autores como Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Albert Camus (1913-1960), Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) o Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) entre otros. Respecto a éste último, a Heidegger, podemos encontrar algunas claves interesantes a través de su filosofía en relación al protagonista, a Maciek, especialmente a través de la idea del Dasein, a la idea de haber sido arrojado al mundo (Geworfenheit), y la manera tan extrema y visceral en la que vive susodicha condición. Todos aquellos elementos que dan sentido a la vida colectiva se encuentran decaídos o destruidos en su esencia más íntima, la Patria, la religión o la propia idea de Comunidad orgánica. De modo que el protagonista se ha visto «arrojado» frente a una situación o destino indeseado, en unas coyunturas totalmente desfavorables en las que no queda otra elección. Sus decisiones están permanentemente condicionadas por la circunstancia descrita y, por tanto, vive en un mundo donde no controla nada, en lugar de ser sujeto es un mero objeto transportado por esas circunstancias ajenas a su voluntad. Sin embargo, y en coherencia con el Dasein heideggeriano, vemos como Maciek, a raíz de conocer a Krystyna, comienza a experimentar una catarsis interior, que muestra por momentos el deseo de superar ese «ser arrojado al mundo contra tu voluntad», trascendiendo esa condición absurda e irracional de unas decisiones enajenadas de su voluntad para dotar de una significación y un sentido la propia existencia.

|| |:-:| |Andrzej Wajda, el director de la película.|

Otro elemento característico de la filosofía heideggeriana lo podemos encontrar en la «angustia» (angst) a través de la ausencia de un sentido y fundamento último que justifique la existencia del protagonista. Es una angustia en a que el Dasein se enfrenta a la «nada», a ese vacío existencial que hace inútil toda la lucha que Maciek lleva a cabo en la clandestinidad, con asesinatos y actos de terrorismo que pretenden salvaguardar algo que ya no existe, y que simboliza muy bien la Iglesia en ruinas con sus símbolos religiosos invertidos de la que hablábamos con anterioridad. Recuerda un poco a esa dicotomía que se plantea entre ser conservador o reaccionario frente a una realidad como la del propio presente, en la que los valores tradicionales han sido totalmente destruidos, y más que conservar se impone la reacción para volver a construir de la nada.

|| |:-:| |Hipérbola Janus; Textos para la Tradición en tiempos del oscurecimiento: Artículos publicados entre 2014 y 2019 en hiperbolajanus.com; Hipérbola Janus, 2019|

Todas las dudas que asaltan al protagonista se ven incrementadas en el momento decisivo, cuando se dispone a dar muerte al líder comunista. Se produce una tensión interna en Maciek, que se encuentra ligado a la joven que ha conocido ese día, y en ella es donde encuentra ese leve destello de humanidad. Esa circunstancia le hace replantearse por un instante el cumplimiento de su misión, pero es un dilema que no tiene salida, y por ello le asalta nuevamente la angustia frente a esa «nada», ese mundo vacío e incomprensible que trasciende el marco de sus propias elecciones.

Uno de los conceptos centrales de Heidegger en Ser y tiempo es el Sein-zum-Tode (ser-para-la-muerte), la idea de que la muerte es la posibilidad más propia y definitiva del Dasein, y que enfrentarla auténticamente permite vivir de manera más plena. Y es que el protagonista se encuentra permanentemente sobre esa frontera entre la vida y la muerte, que afronta con todas sus consecuencias, conscientemente, y la acepta. Esta actitud podría leerse como una forma de Dasein inauténtico, una huida del ser-para-la-muerte mediante la distracción (das Man, el «se» impersonal). Sin embargo, su decisión de cumplir la misión sugiere un enfrentamiento final con esa posibilidad. Otro aspecto que podemos conectar con el pensamiento heideggeriano es la autenticidad o inautenticidad de la vida del protagonista. En relación a la inautenticidad vemos como al principio sigue las órdenes de sus superiores en la organización sin cuestionarlas, lo cual implica un comportamiento inequívocamente alienante. Respecto a aquello que resulta auténtico de su existencia son sus relaciones con Krystyna, que supone imponer su propia voluntad y decisión, mostrando un Dasein que asume su libertad.

|| |:-:| |Escena de la película.|

Otros aspectos más generales de la filosofía existencialista redundan sobre estos mismos aspectos, con la elección entre la libertad absoluta y la condena inevitable. La idea del hombre condenado a actuar, a una elección continua, aún cuando el hombre no es dueño de su destino, o las consecuencias de tales acciones son absurdas, irracionales e incomprensibles. El propio absurdo de la existencia frente al vacío y la ausencia de principios sólidos en los que cimentar la vida, no solo en sus aspectos cotidianos más básicos, sino en aquellos más profundos de la existencia. La soledad y la propia fatalidad frente a un Destino que, como ya hemos apuntado anteriormente, parece imponerse de manera irrevocable, y podríamos decir que brutalmente, al individuo aislado, incapaz de asirse en una guía, en unos valores que le permitan remontar la situación.

En términos generales «Cenizas y diamantes», además de ser una película de gran calidad en sus aspectos técnicos, en su fotografía, en la configuración de sus escenas y en el propio desarrollo argumental, bajo un guión espléndidamente ejecutado a lo largo de sus 98 minutos de duración, también nos invita a una reflexión profunda sobre la condición humana y la propia Modernidad. Y es algo que vemos en nuestros días, con las consecuencias de un pensamiento débil, con la promoción del individualismo, el hedonismo y lo efímero. La ausencia de estructuras sólidas, la subversión de toda forma de autoridad y jerarquía tradicionales. Paradójicamente, el mundo actual tiende a formas de poder y autoridad mucho más invasivas y coercitivas, tanto a nivel individual como colectivo, pero en la misma línea abstracta e impersonal que nos describe la película, abocándonos a la alienación y la inautenticidad de nuestras propias vidas. Y como Maciek, también nosotros, vivimos en un mundo dominado por la incertidumbre y la desesperanza, en el que el globalismo y sus perversas ideologías deshumanizantes actúan por doquier.

|| |:-:| |Carátula original de la película en polaco.|

---

Artículo original: Hipérbola Janus, Reseña de «Cenizas y Diamantes» (Andrzej Wajda, 1958) (TOR), 31/Mar/2025

@ 94a6a78a:0ddf320e

Azzamo is more than just a relay provider—it’s a high-performance network designed to make Nostr faster, smoother, and more reliable for everyone. Whether you're posting notes, zapping sats, sharing media, or sending DMs, Azzamo keeps your Nostr experience seamless and efficient.

Nostr is unstoppable, but not all relays are the same. Some are slow, unreliable, or disappear overnight, while others get overloaded, making message delivery inconsistent. Azzamo is built differently—offering fast, stable, and globally distributed relays to ensure low-latency, high-speed connections, no matter where you are.

---

🌍 Premium Relays for Maximum Performance

Azzamo Premium Relays are optimized for speed, reliability, and uptime, available exclusively to Premium users:

📡 Azzamo Premium Relays:

• Europe: wss://relay.azzamo.net
• America: wss://us.azzamo.net
• Asia: wss://asia.azzamo.net

Add Azzamo Premium Time to unlock unlimited, high-speed access across these global relays.

🔗 Get Premium: azzamo.net/premium

---

🆓 Freemium Relays – Free for Everyone

Azzamo believes in keeping Nostr open and accessible to all. That’s why we offer free relays for everyone, with no rate limits for Premium members

📡 Freemium Relays:

• Free Relay: wss://nostr.azzamo.net – Open to all.
• Inbox Relay: wss://inbox.azzamo.net – Reliable for DMs & group messages.

By offering both free and premium options, Azzamo ensures that anyone can use Nostr, while also funding the infrastructure that keeps it running smoothly.

---

🛡️ Minimal Moderation, Maximum Transparency

Nostr is about free speech, but that doesn’t mean zero moderation. Azzamo follows a minimal moderation policy to keep relays functional and spam-free while maintaining transparency in enforcement.\ \ 🚫 Spam & network abuse\ 🚫 Illegal content (CSAM, fraud, malware, scams)\ 🚫 Impersonation & identity abuse

We also maintain a public Ban API for transparent moderation decisions.

📖 More on our Ban API: azzamo.net/introducing-the-azzamo-ban-api

---

🚀 Get Started with Azzamo Relays Today!

🔗 Connect now:\ 📡 wss://nostr.azzamo.net (Freemium Free Relay)\ 📬 wss://inbox.azzamo.net (Freemium Inbox Relay)\ 📡 wss://relay.azzamo.net (Premium Europe Relay)\ 📡 wss://us.azzamo.net (Premium Americas Relay)\ 📡 wss://asia.azzamo.net (Premium Asia Relay)

Nostr is growing fast. Make sure your relays can keep up. 🚀

azzamo #grownostr #nostr #relay #relays #premiumrelay #paidrelay

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ein Lämmchen löschte an einem Bache seinen Durst. Fern von ihm, aber näher der Quelle, tat ein Wolf das gleiche. Kaum erblickte er das Lämmchen, so schrie er:

"Warum trübst du mir das Wasser, das ich trinken will?"

"Wie wäre das möglich", erwiderte schüchtern das Lämmchen, "ich stehe hier unten und du so weit oben; das Wasser fließt ja von dir zu mir; glaube mir, es kam mir nie in den Sinn, dir etwas Böses zu tun!"

"Ei, sieh doch! Du machst es gerade, wie dein Vater vor sechs Monaten; ich erinnere mich noch sehr wohl, daß auch du dabei warst, aber glücklich entkamst, als ich ihm für sein Schmähen das Fell abzog!"

"Ach, Herr!" flehte das zitternde Lämmchen, "ich bin ja erst vier Wochen alt und kannte meinen Vater gar nicht, so lange ist er schon tot; wie soll ich denn für ihn büßen."

"Du Unverschämter!" so endigt der Wolf mit erheuchelter Wut, indem er die Zähne fletschte. "Tot oder nicht tot, weiß ich doch, daß euer ganzes Geschlecht mich hasset, und dafür muß ich mich rächen."

Ohne weitere Umstände zu machen, zerriß er das Lämmchen und verschlang es.

Das Gewissen regt sich selbst bei dem größten Bösewichte; er sucht doch nach Vorwand, um dasselbe damit bei Begehung seiner Schlechtigkeiten zu beschwichtigen.

Quelle: https://eden.one/fabeln-aesop-das-lamm-und-der-wolf

@ bcbb3e40:a494e501

El 7 de febrero de 2025, Donald Trump firmó una orden ejecutiva que establecía una «Oficina de la Fe» en la Casa Blanca, dirigida por su asesora espiritual Paula White-Cain, la pastora de esa «teología de la prosperidad» (prosperity theology) que predica el «Evangelio de la salud y la riqueza» (health and wealth gospel^1). Investida de su nueva función, la reverenda pastora dijo: «Tengo la autoridad para declarar a la Casa Blanca un lugar santo. Es mi presencia la que la santifica»[^2]. Los siete rabinos del «Sanedrín Naciente» —la corte suprema que guiará a Israel cuando se reconstruya el Templo de Jerusalén— enviaron conmovedoras felicitaciones al presidente Trump por el establecimiento de esta Oficina. «Expresamos nuestra sincera gratitud —se lee en el mensaje oficial enviado a Trump desde el Monte Sión— por llevar la fe a la vanguardia de la cultura estadounidense y mundial mediante el establecimiento de la Oficina de la Fe en la Casa Blanca. Su reconocimiento de la importancia de la religión en la vida pública es un paso hacia la restauración de los valores morales y del liderazgo espiritual en el mundo[^3]. La carta del «Sanedrín Naciente», que augura el éxito a la «misión divina» del presidente estadounidense, reproduce las dos caras de una «moneda del Templo», acuñada en 2017 para celebrar el traslado de la embajada estadounidense a Jerusalén y, simultáneamente, el centenario de la Declaración Balfour. En el anverso se ven los perfiles de Donald Trump y Ciro el Grande, a quien la tradición judía atribuye la reconstrucción del templo destruido por los babilonios, con la inscripción (en hebreo e inglés) «Cyrus —Balfour— Trump Declaration 1917-2017»; en el reverso está la imagen del Templo de Jerusalén[^4]. Otra moneda, que lleva los perfiles de Trump y Ciro en el anverso y los de Trump y Netanyahu en el reverso, fue acuñada en 2018 para celebrar el septuagésimo aniversario de la independencia del «Estado de Israel»; se observa dos inscripciones en hebreo e inglés: «Y Él me encargó construirle una casa en Jerusalén» y «Guerra de los Hijos de la Luz contra los Hijos de las Tinieblas».

El tema de la «guerra de los Hijos de la Luz contra los Hijos de las Tinieblas» ha tenido una difusión particular en el imaginario y la propaganda trumpista. El 7 de junio de 2020, monseñor Carlo Maria Viganò, ex nuncio de la Santa Sede en los Estados Unidos, escribió una carta al presidente Donald Trump que comenzaba así: «Estamos asistiendo en los últimos meses a la formación de dos bandos, que los definiría bíblicos: los hijos de la luz y los hijos de las tinieblas»[^5]. El 1 de enero de 2021, el agitprop estadounidense Steve Bannon declaró en una entrevista con Monseñor Viganò: «Esta es una batalla de época entre los hijos de la Luz y los hijos de las Tinieblas»[^6].

Son numerosos los judíos sionistas que están en el círculo del presidente Trump: además de su hija Ivanka (convertida en 2009) y su yerno Jared Kushner (entonces Consejero Anciano del Presidente), el 19 de noviembre de 2024 el «The Jerusalem Post»[^7] publicó una lista de los más influyentes: Stephen Miller, subdirector del staff de la Casa Blanca y consejero de Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos; David Melech Friedman, a quien en 2016 Trump nombró embajador en Israel; el multimillonario «filántropo» Steven Charles Witkoff, enviado especial de Estados Unidos a Oriente Medio; Miriam Adelson, directora del periódico «Israel Hayom», clasificada por Bloomberg Billionaires como la quinta mujer más rica del mundo (con un patrimonio neto de 32,400 millones de dólares), financiadora de iniciativas políticas conservadoras en Estados Unidos e Israel; el banquero Boris Epshteyn, consejero estratégico de la campaña presidencial de Trump en 2020; Howard Williams Lutnick, presidente de la Cantor Fitzgerald del Grupo BGC, financista de las campañas presidenciales de Donald Trump en 2020 y 2024, ahora secretario de Comercio; la modelo Elizabeth Pipko, portavoz nacional del Partido Republicano y creadora de un «museo interactivo virtual» sobre la «Shoah» como parte del proyecto de Lest People Forget, cuyo objetivo es combatir el «antisemitismo» y la «negacionismo»; Lee Michael Zeldin, miembro republicano de la Cámara de Representantes por el estado de Nueva York del 2015 al 2023 y actualmente administrador de la EPA (Environmental Protection Agency); la columnista Laura Elizabeth Loomer, «orgullosamente islamófoba», activa patrocinadora de Trump en la campaña para las elecciones presidenciales de 2024; Sidney Ferris Rosenberg, influyente presentador de radio y periodista deportivo; William Owen Scharf, Asistente del Presidente y secretario del personal de la Casa Blanca; Marc Jeffrey Rowan, «filántropo» con un patrimonio neto valorado por Forbes en ocho mil ochocientos millones de dólares.

Además de estos, cabe mencionar al popular presentador de radio Mark Levin quien, en diciembre de 2019, durante la celebración de la fiesta de Janucá en la Casa Blanca, saludó a Donald Trump como «el primer presidente judío de los Estados Unidos»[^8]. Según un funcionario de alto nivel de la Casa Blanca, Donald Trump se convirtió al judaísmo dos años antes en la sinagoga de la secta Jabad Lubavitch en la ciudad de Nueva York. David Elias Goldberg, miembro del Jewish Center of Antisemitic Study, también entrevistó al funcionario, para quien «Trump fue “instado” por su hija Ivanka y su yerno Jared Kushner para abrazar la fe. Inicialmente, Trump se habría mostrado reacio, considerando que esto podría enfriar el apoyo del electorado evangélico». Luego, informa «Israel Today News», «cambió de opinión y se convirtió oficialmente a principios de 2017. La ceremonia se llevó a cabo en privado y se guardó celosamente durante casi dos años»[^9]. Pero ya en septiembre de 2015, el rabino millonario Kirt Schneider, invitado a la Trump Tower de Nueva York, había impuesto sus manos sobre la cabeza de Donald Trump y lo había bendecido en hebreo e inglés, declarando: «Las únicas dos naciones que tienen una relación privilegiada con Dios son Israel y los Estados Unidos de América»[^10].

El 7 de octubre de 2024, en el aniversario de la operación de Hamas «Diluvio de Al-Aqsa», Trump fue acompañado por un «superviviente de la Shoah» a la tumba de Menachem Mendel Schneerson, séptimo y último Rabino de los Hasidim de la secta Jabad Lubavitch, que en 1991 declaró a sus seguidores: «He hecho todo lo posible para provocar el arribo del Mesías, ahora les paso a ustedes esta misión; hagan todo lo que puedan para que Él venga»^11. En relación al evento mesiánico, el eminente rabino Yekutiel Fish atribuyó una misión decisiva a Trump: «Todo el mundo está centrado en Gaza, pero esa es solo una parte de la agenda del fin de los tiempos, que tiene a los judíos viviendo en las fronteras profetizadas de Israel; la Torá incluye explícitamente a Gaza. Lo que Trump está haciendo es limpiar Gaza de todos los odiadores de Israel. No podrán estar en Israel después de la venida del Mesías. (...) Esto incluirá a Gaza, la mitad del Líbano y gran parte de Jordania. Y vemos que casi lo hemos logrado. Siria cayó. Líbano está medio destruido. Gaza está destrozada. El escenario está casi listo para el Mesías. Pero, ¿cómo pueden los palestinos estar aquí cuando vayamos a recibir al Mesías? El Mesías necesita que alguien se ocupe de esto, y en este caso, es Donald Trump. Trump está simplemente llevando a cabo las tareas finales necesarias antes de que el Mesías sea revelado»[^12].

Esta inspiración escatológica está presente en las palabras de Pete Brian Hegseth, el pintoresco exponente del «Reconstruccionismo Cristiano»[^13] a quien Trump nombró secretario de Defensa. En un discurso pronunciado en 2019 en el Hotel Rey David de Jerusalén, con motivo de la conferencia anual del canal Arutz Sheva (Israel National News), Hegseth enalteció el «vínculo eterno» entre Israel y Estados Unidos, y enumeró los «milagros» que atestiguan el «apoyo divino» a la causa sionista, el último de los cuales será la reconstrucción del Templo judío en la zona donde actualmente se encuentra la mezquita de al-Aqsa: «La dignidad de capital adquirida por Jerusalén —dijo— fue un milagro, y no hay razón por la cual no sea posible el milagro de la restauración del Templo en el Monte del Templo».[^14]

Es conocido que el fundamentalismo evangélico pro-sionista[^15] comparte con el judaísmo la creencia en que la construcción del tercer Templo de Jerusalén marcará el comienzo de la era mesiánica; cuando la administración Trump trasladó la embajada de Estados Unidos a Jerusalén en 2017, Laurie Cardoza-Moore, exponente del evangelismo sionista, saludó así la «obediencia de Trump a la Palabra de Dios» en «Haaretz»: «Al establecer la Embajada en Jerusalén, el presidente Donald Trump está implementando una de las iniciativas históricas de dimensión bíblica en su presidencia. Al igual que muchos judíos en Israel y en todo el mundo, los cristianos reconocen el vínculo de los judíos con la Biblia a través del nombre de Jerusalén como la capital del antiguo Israel, así como el sitio del Primer y Segundo Templos. Según los profetas Ezequiel, Isaías y el apóstol Juan del Nuevo Testamento, todos los israelíes esperan la reconstrucción del Tercer Templo»[^16]. El 22 de mayo del mismo año, Donald Trump, acompañado de su esposa Melania, de su hija Ivanka y su yerno Jared Kushner, fue el primer presidente de los Estados Unidos en ejercicio en acudir al Muro de las Lamentaciones, anexionado ilegalmente a la entidad sionista.

En 2019, la administración Trump confirmó la posición de Estados Unidos al enviar en visita oficial para Jerusalén a Mike Pompeo, un secretario de Estado que —ironía de la Historia— lleva el mismo nombre del general romano que asaltó la ciudad en el año 63 a.C. «Por primera vez en la historia, un secretario de Estado norteamericano visitó la Ciudad Vieja de Jerusalén en compañía de un alto político israelí. Fue una visita histórica que reforzó las expectativas israelíes y constituyó un reconocimiento tácito de la soberanía israelí sobre el sitio del Monte del Templo y la Explanada de las Mezquitas. (…) Mike Pompeo, acompañado por el primer ministro Benjamin Netanyahu y el embajador de Estados Unidos en Israel, David Friedman, también visitó el túnel del Muro de las Lamentaciones y la sinagoga ubicada bajo tierra, en el presunto lugar del santuario del Templo[^17], donde se le mostró una maqueta del futuro Templo[^18]. En el transcurso de una entrevista concedida durante la fiesta del Purim (que celebra el exterminio de la clase política persa, ocurrido hace 2500 años), el secretario de Estado insinuó que «el presidente Donald Trump puede haber sido enviado por Dios para salvar al pueblo judío y que confiaba en que aquí el Señor estaba obrando»[^19].

Como observa Daniele Perra, en este mismo número de «Eurasia», el «mito movilizador» del Tercer Templo, atribuible a los «mitos teológicos» señalados por Roger Garaudy como mitos fundadores de la entidad sionista, «atribuye al judaísmo una especie de función sociológica de transmisión y proyección del conflicto palestino-israelí hacia el resto del mundo y confiere una inspiración apocalíptica al momento geopolítico actual».

|Info|| |:-|:-| |Autor| Claudio Mutti | |Fuente| I "Figli della Luce" alla Casa Bianca | |Fecha| 8/Mar/2025 | |Traducción| Francisco de la Torre |

[^2]: The White House, President Trump announces appointments to the White House Faith Office https://www.whitehouse.gov,, 7 de febrero de 2025; Trump establece la Oficina de la Fe con una foto de «La Última Cena» | Fue dirigida por la controvertida predicadora Paula White, https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it, 10 de febrero de 2025.

[^3]: «We extend our heartfelt gratitude for bringing faith to the forefront of American and global culture through the establishment of the Faith Office in the White House. Your recognition of the importance of religion in public life is a step toward restoring moral values and spiritual leadership in the world» (Letter from the Nascent Sanhedrin to President Donald J. Trump, Jerusalem, Wednesday, February 12, 2025).

[^4]: Israeli group mints Trump coin to honor Jerusalem recognition, «The Times of Israel», https://www.timesofisrael.com, 28-2-2018.

[^5]: Mons. Viganò — Siamo nella battaglia tra figli della luce e figli delle tenebre, https://www.italiador.com, 7-6-2020

[^6]: TRANSCRIPT: Steve Bannon’s ‘War Room’ interview with Abp. Viganò, lifesitenews.com, 4-1-2021. Sulle origini e sulla fortuna di questo tema cfr. C. Mutti, Le sètte dell’Occidente, «Eurasia», 2/2021, pp. 12-15. (https://www.eurasia-rivista.com/las-sectas-de-occidente/)

[^7]: Luke Tress, The who’s who of Jews in Trump’s inner circle?, «The Jerusalem Post», https://www.jpost.com, 19-11-2024.

[^8]: Radio Talk Show Host Mark Levin Calls President Trump «the First Jewish President of the United States», https://www.c-span.org, 11-12-2019.

[^9]: «However, he had a change of heart and officially converted in early 2017. The ceremony was held in private, and closely guarded for nearly two years» (Donald Trump converted to Judaism two years ago, according to White House official, https://israeltodaynews.blogspot.com/2019/02).

[^10]: «El rabino Kirt Schneider (...) es un millonario judío, una figura televisiva de los “judíos mesiánicos”. Sus emisiones televisivas semanales son emitidas por más de treinta canales cristianos en unos doscientos países; entre ellos, los canales “Yes” y “Hot” en Israel. Solo en Estados Unidos, sus emisiones atraen a 1.600.000 telespectadores cada semana. Kirt Schneider dirige un imperio de telecomunicaciones que tiene un millón y medio de seguidores en Facebook, X (antes Twitter) y YouTube» (Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent — Youssef Hindi, El milenarismo teopolítico de Israel, Edizioni all'insegna del Veltro, Parma 2025, p. 31).

[^12]: «Everyone is focused on Gaza, but that is only one part of the end-of-days agenda, which has the Jews living in Israel’s prophesied borders. The Torah explicitly includes Gaza. What Trump is doing is cleaning out Gaza of all the haters of Israel. They cannot be in Israel after the Messiah comes. (…) This will include Gaza, half of Lebanon, and much of Jordan. And we see that we are almost there. Syria fell. Lebanon is half gone. Gaza is ripped up. The stage is nearly set for Messiah. But how can the Palestinians be here when we go to greet the Messiah? The Messiah needs someone to take care of this, and in this case, it is Donald Trump. Trump is merely carrying out the final tasks needed before Messiah is revealed» (Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz, Trump’s Gaza Plan is «The Final task before Messiah», https://israel365news.com, 5-2-2025).

[^13]: «A day after Hegseth was announced for the Cabinet position, Brooks Potteiger, a pastor within the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), posted on X that Hegseth is a member of the church in good standing. The CREC, a denomination of Christian Reconstructionism, is considered by some academics to be an extremist, Christian supremacist movement» (Shannon Bond e altri, What’s behind defense secretary pick Hegseth’s war on ‘woke’, https://www.npr.org, 14-11-2024.

[^14]: «The decoration of Jerusalem as a capital was a miracle, and there is no reason why the miracle of the re-establishment of Temple on the Temple Mount is not possible» (Pete Hegseth at Arutz Sheva Conference, youtube.com). Cfr. Daniele Perra, Paleotrumpismo, neotrumpismo e post-trumpismo, in: AA. VV., Trumpismo, Cinabro Edizioni, Roma 2025, pp. 22-23.

[^15]: Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent — Youssef Hindi, El milenarismo teopolítico de Israel, cit., págs. 82 a 96.

[^16]: «We American Christians Welcome Trump’s Obedience to God’s Word on Jerusalem», «Haaretz», 6-12-2017.

[^17]: Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent — Youssef Hindi, El milenarismo teopolítico de Israel, cit., pág. 97.

[^18]: Pompeo en visite historique au mur Occidental aux côtés de Netanyahu et Friedman, «The Times of Israel», https://fr.timesofisrael.com, 21-3-2019.

[^19]: Pompeo says Trump may have been sent by God to save Jews from Iran, «The Times of Israel», 22-3-2019.

---

Artículo original: Claudio Mutti, Los «hijos de la luz» en la Casa Blanca (TOR), 25/Mar/2025

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

เริ่มจากบรอกโคลี แล้วขยายผลไปสู่ระดับโลก

หลายประเทศในเอเชีย แอฟริกา ละตินอเมริกา ตกอยู่ในสภาพ “จนหนี้หัวโต” ทั้งจากวิกฤตเศรษฐกิจหรือปัญหาสภาพภูมิอากาศ แล้วใครกันล่ะเข้ามาช่วย?

ชื่อที่ได้ยินบ่อยคือ IMF (กองทุนการเงินระหว่างประเทศ) World Bank (ธนาคารโลก) WTO (องค์การการค้าโลก) FAO (องค์การอาหารและการเกษตรของ UN)

ฟังดูเหมือนองค์กรการกุศล แต่เบื้องหลังคือกลไกที่ “แลกข้าวกับกฎหมาย” โดยเฉพาะเมื่อประเทศยากจนขอเงินกู้หรือขอเข้าเป็นสมาชิกข้อตกลงการค้า พวกเขาจะถูก “บังคับกลายๆ” ให้ต้องแก้กฎหมายภายในประเทศให้สอดคล้องกับ UPOV 1991

ตัวอย่างชัดๆ กันครับเช่น 1. แอฟริกาใต้ / กานา / เคนยา ถูกกดดันจาก World Bank ให้ปรับกฎหมายคุ้มครองพันธุ์พืช ไม่งั้นจะไม่อนุมัติเงินช่วยเหลือสำหรับเกษตรกรรมและการศึกษา 2.ฟิลิปปินส์ / เวียดนาม / อินโดนีเซีย ต้องรับเงื่อนไข UPOV 1991 เพื่อเข้า FTA กับ EU หรือสหรัฐฯ ถ้าไม่ยอม? ข้าว ข้าวโพด หรือสินค้าเกษตรอื่นๆ จะเข้าไปขายไม่ได้ 3.เม็กซิโก เคยต่อสู้กับ Monsanto เรื่องสิทธิในการปลูกข้าวโพดดั้งเดิม แต่สุดท้ายโดน “ตีท้ายครัว” ด้วย FTA กับสหรัฐที่ฝัง UPOV 1991 มาแบบแนบเนียน

ปี 2561 รัฐบาลบางประเทศพยายาม “รีบแก้กฎหมายพันธุ์พืช” ให้สอดคล้องกับ UPOV 1991 เพื่อปูทางเข้าสู่ CPTPP ซึ่งเป็นข้อตกลงการค้าเสรีระดับภูมิภาคที่มีประเทศร่ำรวยอยู่เต็มไปหมด

ข้อเรียกร้องจาก CPTPP คือ -ต้อง ห้ามเกษตรกรเก็บพันธุ์ไว้ใช้ซ้ำโดยไม่ได้รับอนุญาต -ต้อง คุ้มครองพันธุ์พืชที่พัฒนาขึ้นโดยบริษัทเอกชน 20-25 ปี -ต้อง เปิดทางให้บริษัทต่างชาติเข้ามาจดทะเบียนพันธุ์พืชในประเทศได้โดยง่าย

เสียงค้านจึงดังกระหึ่มจากเกษตรกร นักวิชาการ และภาคประชาสังคม นำโดยเครือข่ายเกษตรกรรมยั่งยืน กลุ่มรักษ์พันธุ์ข้าว จนนายกรัฐมนตรีในขณะนั้นต้องออกมาประกาศ “พักเรื่องนี้ไว้ก่อน” แต่ถึงวันนี้... ก็ยังไม่มีการยืนยันว่าจะ “ล้มเลิกโดยสิ้นเชิง”

รู้หรือไม่ว่า บริษัทพันธุ์พืชที่ใหญ่ที่สุดในโลกไม่ใช่คนปลูกข้าว แต่มาจาก “บริษัทยา” และ “บริษัทเคมี”!!!

Bayer (เยอรมนี) ที่ควบรวม Monsanto Corteva (สหรัฐฯ) แยกตัวจาก DowDuPont Syngenta (สวิตเซอร์แลนด์) ที่ตอนนี้เป็นของบริษัทจีน ChemChina

3 บริษัทนี้ครองตลาดพันธุ์พืชดัดแปลงพันธุกรรม (GMO) และพันธุ์ลูกผสมทั่วโลก และผลักดัน UPOV 1991 แบบดุดันผ่านองค์กรเช่น ISF (International Seed Federation)

องค์กรเหล่านี้พวกเขาไม่ได้ปล้นด้วยปืน แต่ใช้ สัญญา พวกเขาไม่ได้เผาไร่ แต่ “จดสิทธิบัตร” สิ่งที่ไม่ควรเป็นของใคร และสิ่งที่พวกเขาต้องการ ไม่ใช่แค่ข้าวโพดหรือถั่วเหลือง แต่คือ “สิทธิในการออกแบบอาหารทั้งโลก” ในแบบที่คนตัวเล็ก... ต้องจ่ายค่าเช่ากินข้าว ทุกปี ตลอดชีวิต

จากปัญหาเหล่านี้ก็เลยเกิดแนวคิดที่เรียกว่า Seed Sovereignty ซึ่งมองว่าเมล็ดพันธุ์เป็นสมบัติร่วมของมนุษยชาติ ไม่ควรถูกครอบครองแบบผูกขาด และเกษตรกรควรมีสิทธิในการ
-เก็บเมล็ดพันธุ์ -แลกเปลี่ยน -ปรับปรุง -ใช้งานซ้ำ โดยไม่ต้องขออนุญาตใคร

ตอนต่อไปเรามาคุยเรื่อง UPOV 1991 กันครับ

#pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก

@ daa41bed:88f54153

There has been a good bit of discussion on Nostr over the past few days about the merits of zaps as a method of engaging with notes, so after writing a rather lengthy article on the pros of a strategic Bitcoin reserve, I wanted to take some time to chime in on the much more fun topic of digital engagement.

Let's begin by defining a couple of things:

Nostr is a decentralized, censorship-resistance protocol whose current biggest use case is social media (think Twitter/X). Instead of relying on company servers, it relies on relays that anyone can spin up and own their own content. Its use cases are much bigger, though, and this article is hosted on my own relay, using my own Nostr relay as an example.

Zap is a tip or donation denominated in sats (small units of Bitcoin) sent from one user to another. This is generally done directly over the Lightning Network but is increasingly using Cashu tokens. For the sake of this discussion, how you transmit/receive zaps will be irrelevant, so don't worry if you don't know what Lightning or Cashu are.

If we look at how users engage with posts and follows/followers on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc., it becomes evident that traditional social media thrives on engagement farming. The more outrageous a post, the more likely it will get a reaction. We see a version of this on more visual social platforms like YouTube and TikTok that use carefully crafted thumbnail images to grab the user's attention to click the video. If you'd like to dive deep into the psychology and science behind social media engagement, let me know, and I'd be happy to follow up with another article.

In this user engagement model, a user is given the option to comment or like the original post, or share it among their followers to increase its signal. They receive no value from engaging with the content aside from the dopamine hit of the original experience or having their comment liked back by whatever influencer they provide value to. Ad revenue flows to the content creator. Clout flows to the content creator. Sales revenue from merch and content placement flows to the content creator. We call this a linear economy -- the idea that resources get created, used up, then thrown away. Users create content and farm as much engagement as possible, then the content is forgotten within a few hours as they move on to the next piece of content to be farmed.

What if there were a simple way to give value back to those who engage with your content? By implementing some value-for-value model -- a circular economy. Enter zaps.

Unlike traditional social media platforms, Nostr does not actively use algorithms to determine what content is popular, nor does it push content created for active user engagement to the top of a user's timeline. Yes, there are "trending" and "most zapped" timelines that users can choose to use as their default, but these use relatively straightforward engagement metrics to rank posts for these timelines.

That is not to say that we may not see clients actively seeking to refine timeline algorithms for specific metrics. Still, the beauty of having an open protocol with media that is controlled solely by its users is that users who begin to see their timeline gamed towards specific algorithms can choose to move to another client, and for those who are more tech-savvy, they can opt to run their own relays or create their own clients with personalized algorithms and web of trust scoring systems.

Zaps enable the means to create a new type of social media economy in which creators can earn for creating content and users can earn by actively engaging with it. Like and reposting content is relatively frictionless and costs nothing but a simple button tap. Zaps provide active engagement because they signal to your followers and those of the content creator that this post has genuine value, quite literally in the form of money—sats.

I have seen some comments on Nostr claiming that removing likes and reactions is for wealthy people who can afford to send zaps and that the majority of people in the US and around the world do not have the time or money to zap because they have better things to spend their money like feeding their families and paying their bills. While at face value, these may seem like valid arguments, they, unfortunately, represent the brainwashed, defeatist attitude that our current economic (and, by extension, social media) systems aim to instill in all of us to continue extracting value from our lives.

Imagine now, if those people dedicating their own time (time = money) to mine pity points on social media would instead spend that time with genuine value creation by posting content that is meaningful to cultural discussions. Imagine if, instead of complaining that their posts get no zaps and going on a tirade about how much of a victim they are, they would empower themselves to take control of their content and give value back to the world; where would that leave us? How much value could be created on a nascent platform such as Nostr, and how quickly could it overtake other platforms?

Other users argue about user experience and that additional friction (i.e., zaps) leads to lower engagement, as proven by decades of studies on user interaction. While the added friction may turn some users away, does that necessarily provide less value? I argue quite the opposite. You haven't made a few sats from zaps with your content? Can't afford to send some sats to a wallet for zapping? How about using the most excellent available resource and spending 10 seconds of your time to leave a comment? Likes and reactions are valueless transactions. Social media's real value derives from providing monetary compensation and actively engaging in a conversation with posts you find interesting or thought-provoking. Remember when humans thrived on conversation and discussion for entertainment instead of simply being an onlooker of someone else's life?

If you've made it this far, my only request is this: try only zapping and commenting as a method of engagement for two weeks. Sure, you may end up liking a post here and there, but be more mindful of how you interact with the world and break yourself from blind instinct. You'll thank me later.

@ c8841c9d:ae8048e2

What is a cryptocurrency ?

Blockchain #Cryptocurrency #Cryptomindmap

A cryptocurrency is a digital currency secured by cryptography.

Cryptocurrency operates on a blockchain network as a distributed ledger, secured by cryptography.

Users own the private and public keys.

For the first time in the digital age, the double spending issue is resolved thanks to the blockchain consensus mechanism. This ensures decentralization and security, creating a trustless environment where transactions are immutable once confirmed.

Cryptocurrency can be categorized in different groups

Bitcoin is the first ever created cryptocurrency on the bitcoin blockchain.

Altcoins is a generic term regrouping every crypto except Bitcoin. There are over a million of ever created Altcoins and more than 20,000 currently active. They can be:

• Coin from a programable blockchain such as Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA), or Sui (SUI) for example. Ecosystem of applications are built on top of these blockchain networks.
• Token of Decentralized Application (DApp) built on programmable blockchain such as ChainLink (LINK) or Aave (AAVE) on Ethereum.
• Memecoins are a type of cryptocurrency, typically inspired by internet memes or popular culture, with little or no intrinsic value but cultural and community support. Memecoins such as Dogecoin (DOGE) or Shiba (SHIB) are some of the strongest community in crypto. The price of memecoins is also the most volatile of the entire crypto ecosystem.

A coin is the native cryptocurrency of a blockchain, used for validator rewards and transaction fees. A token, on the other hand, is built on top of an existing blockchain for specific applications.

They are two mains ways to use with cryptocurrencies.

With a wallets for direct blockchain interactions, which contains the keys to necessary for true ownership of the cryptocurrencies, similar to owning cash or any other tangible form of money.

On a centralized exchanges which act as on/off ramps for buying, selling, and keeping crypto. The exchange is in the charge of the private key. It is the equivalent of having money on a bank account.

Remember the saying "Not Your Keys, Not Your Crypto". If you don't control your private keys, you don't truly own your crypto.\ \ Users initiate transactions, send, receive and hold cryptocurrency and their wallet.

Validators ensure blockchain integrity by verifying transactions and building blocks, earning crypto in return.

Developers work on the network infrastructure and the ecosystem, including DApps. While general programming languages can be used, languages specifically designed for blockchain development, like Solidity for Ethereum, have emerged to facilitate crypto development..

Thanks for reading! 🌟 Share in comments your thoughts on cryptocurrency and what topic you would like to be mapped next! #Crypto

@ caa88a52:6c226a91

Running Nestr!

@ 6b3780ef:221416c8

This workshop will guide you through exploring the concepts behind MCP servers and how to deploy them as DVMs in Nostr using DVMCP. By the end, you'll understand how these systems work together and be able to create your own deployments.

Understanding MCP Systems

MCP (Model Context Protocol) systems consist of two main components that work together:

1. MCP Server: The heart of the system that exposes tools, which you can access via the .listTools() method.
2. MCP Client: The interface that connects to the MCP server and lets you use the tools it offers.

These servers and clients can communicate using different transport methods:

• Standard I/O (stdio): A simple local connection method when your server and client are on the same machine.
• Server-Sent Events (SSE): Uses HTTP to create a communication channel.

For this workshop, we'll use stdio to deploy our server. DVMCP will act as a bridge, connecting to your MCP server as an MCP client, and exposing its tools as a DVM that anyone can call from Nostr.

Creating (or Finding) an MCP Server

Building an MCP server is simpler than you might think:

1. Create software in any programming language you're comfortable with.
2. Add an MCP library to expose your server's MCP interface.
3. Create an API that wraps around your software's functionality.

Once your server is ready, an MCP client can connect, for example, with bun index.js, and then call .listTools() to discover what your server can do. This pattern, known as reflection, makes Nostr DVMs and MCP a perfect match since both use JSON, and DVMs can announce and call tools, effectively becoming an MCP proxy.

Alternatively, you can use one of the many existing MCP servers available in various repositories.

For more information about mcp and how to build mcp servers you can visit https://modelcontextprotocol.io/

Setting Up the Workshop

Let's get hands-on:

First, to follow this workshop you will need Bun. Install it from https://bun.sh/. For Linux and macOS, you can use the installation script:

curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash

1. Choose your MCP server: You can either create one or use an existing one.

2. Inspect your server using the MCP inspector tool: bash npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector build/index.js arg1 arg2 This will:

3. Launch a client UI (default: http://localhost:5173)
4. Start an MCP proxy server (default: port 3000)

5. Pass any additional arguments directly to your server

6. Use the inspector: Open the client UI in your browser to connect with your server, list available tools, and test its functionality.

Deploying with DVMCP

Now for the exciting part – making your MCP server available to everyone on Nostr:

1. Navigate to your MCP server directory.

2. Run without installing (quickest way): npx @dvmcp/bridge

3. Or install globally for regular use: npm install -g @dvmcp/bridge # or bun install -g @dvmcp/bridge Then run using: bash dvmcp-bridge

This will guide you through creating the necessary configuration.

Watch the console logs to confirm successful setup – you'll see your public key and process information, or any issues that need addressing.

For the configuration, you can set the relay as wss://relay.dvmcp.fun , or use any other of your preference

Testing and Integration

1. Visit dvmcp.fun to see your DVM announcement.
2. Call your tools and watch the responses come back.

For production use, consider running dvmcp-bridge as a system service or creating a container for greater reliability and uptime.

Integrating with LLM Clients

You can also integrate your DVMCP deployment with LLM clients using the discovery package:

1. Install and use the @dvmcp/discovery package: bash npx @dvmcp/discovery

2. This package acts as an MCP server for your LLM system by:

3. Connecting to configured Nostr relays
4. Discovering tools from DVMCP servers

5. Making them available to your LLM applications

6. Connect to specific servers or providers using these flags: ```bash # Connect to all DVMCP servers from a provider npx @dvmcp/discovery --provider npub1...

# Connect to a specific DVMCP server npx @dvmcp/discovery --server naddr1... ```

Using these flags, you wouldn't need a configuration file. You can find these commands and Claude desktop configuration already prepared for copy and paste at dvmcp.fun.

This feature lets you connect to any DVMCP server using Nostr and integrate it into your client, either as a DVM or in LLM-powered applications.

Final thoughts

If you've followed this workshop, you now have an MCP server deployed as a Nostr DVM. This means that local resources from the system where the MCP server is running can be accessed through Nostr in a decentralized manner. This capability is powerful and opens up numerous possibilities and opportunities for fun.

You can use this setup for various use cases, including in a controlled/local environment. For instance, you can deploy a relay in your local network that's only accessible within it, exposing all your local MCP servers to anyone connected to the network. This setup can act as a hub for communication between different systems, which could be particularly interesting for applications in home automation or other fields. The potential applications are limitless.

However, it's important to keep in mind that there are security concerns when exposing local resources publicly. You should be mindful of these risks and prioritize security when creating and deploying your MCP servers on Nostr.

Finally, these are new ideas, and the software is still under development. If you have any feedback, please refer to the GitHub repository to report issues or collaborate. DVMCP also has a Signal group you can join. Additionally, you can engage with the community on Nostr using the #dvmcp hashtag.

Useful Resources

• Official Documentation:
• Model Context Protocol: modelcontextprotocol.org

• DVMCP.fun: dvmcp.fun

• Source Code and Development:

• DVMCP: github.com/gzuuus/dvmcp

• DVMCP.fun: github.com/gzuuus/dvmcpfun

• MCP Servers and Clients:

• Smithery AI: smithery.ai
• MCP.so: mcp.so

• Glama AI MCP Servers: glama.ai/mcp/servers

• Signal group

Happy building!

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

I got into a friendly discussion on X regarding health insurance. The specific question was how to deal with health insurance companies (presumably unfairly) denying claims? My answer, as usual: get government out of it!

The US healthcare system is essentially the worst of both worlds:

• Unlike full single payer, individuals incur high costs
• Unlike a true free market, regulation causes increases in costs and decreases competition among insurers

I'm firmly on the side of moving towards the free market. (And I say that as someone living under a single payer system now.) Here's what I would do:

• Get rid of tax incentives that make health insurance tied to your employer, giving individuals back proper freedom of choice.
• Reduce regulations significantly.

• In the short term, some people will still get rejected claims and other obnoxious behavior from insurance companies. We address that in two ways:

  1. Due to reduced regulations, new insurance companies will be able to enter the market offering more reliable coverage and better rates, and people will flock to them because they have the freedom to make their own choices.
  2. Sue the asses off of companies that reject claims unfairly. And ideally, as one of the few legitimate roles of government in all this, institute new laws that limit the ability of fine print to allow insurers to escape their responsibilities. (I'm hesitant that the latter will happen due to the incestuous relationship between Congress/regulators and insurers, but I can hope.)

Will this magically fix everything overnight like politicians normally promise? No. But it will allow the market to return to a healthy state. And I don't think it will take long (order of magnitude: 5-10 years) for it to come together, but that's just speculation.

And since there's a high correlation between those who believe government can fix problems by taking more control and demanding that only credentialed experts weigh in on a topic (both points I strongly disagree with BTW): I'm a trained actuary and worked in the insurance industry, and have directly seen how government regulation reduces competition, raises prices, and harms consumers.

And my final point: I don't think any prior art would be a good comparison for deregulation in the US, it's such a different market than any other country in the world for so many reasons that lessons wouldn't really translate. Nonetheless, I asked Grok for some empirical data on this, and at best the results of deregulation could be called "mixed," but likely more accurately "uncertain, confused, and subject to whatever interpretation anyone wants to apply."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/Zc8yOdrN8lS275hXJ92uwq98M

@ b1b16be0:08f41c1d

Bitcoin need more devs to scale! So I decide to translate to spanish https://plebdevs.com plebdevs@plebdevs.com is a opensource website to learn #bitcoin #lightning free.I started in my free time but now I have to sacrifice work time to move forward. Any zap could be a new bitcoiner!

Why Spanish? Spanish is the third most spoken language on the internet, but much of this community has little access to technical content in English. Plebdevs can be the 🔥torch that illuminates new developers to scale Bitcoin from Latin America and the world.

Apprenticeship Incentive Plebs will gaining the possibility of #learn a higher-paying job as #dev.

Let's Make Bitcoin Scale Millions of Spanish speakers can learn how to develop about Bitcoin and Lightning.

Proof of Work Introduction presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IMC4GHYjccKhGu2mDrtY3bOGcjyFcwgXwFyKyNMq7iw/edit?usp=sharing

🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 30%

Thanks to bitcoinplebdev@bitcoinpleb.dev to create this #wonder

Any Zap will be helpful!

mav21@primal.net am@cubabitcoin.org lacrypta@hodl.ar BenJustman@primal.net shishi@nostrplebs.com sabine@primal.net onpoint@nostr.com theguyswann@iris.to Richard@primal.net eliza@primal.net

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Definição de ULID:

Timestamp 48 bits, Aleatoriedade 80 bits Sendo Timestamp 48 bits inteiro, tempo UNIX em milissegundos, Não ficará sem espaço até o ano 10889 d.C. e Aleatoriedade 80 bits, Fonte criptograficamente segura de aleatoriedade, se possível.

Gerar ULID

```sql

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

CREATE FUNCTION generate_ulid() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE -- Crockford's Base32 encoding BYTEA = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; timestamp BYTEA = E'\000\000\000\000\000\000'; output TEXT = '';

unix_time BIGINT; ulid BYTEA; BEGIN -- 6 timestamp bytes unix_time = (EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM CLOCK_TIMESTAMP()) * 1000)::BIGINT; timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 0, (unix_time >> 40)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 1, (unix_time >> 32)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 2, (unix_time >> 24)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 3, (unix_time >> 16)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 4, (unix_time >> 8)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 5, unix_time::BIT(8)::INTEGER);

-- 10 entropy bytes ulid = timestamp || gen_random_bytes(10);

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE; ```

ULID TO UUID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION parse_ulid(ulid text) RETURNS bytea AS $$ DECLARE -- 16byte bytes bytea = E'\x00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000'; v char[]; -- Allow for O(1) lookup of index values dec integer[] = ARRAY[ 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ]; BEGIN IF NOT ulid ~* '^[0-7][0-9ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ]{25}$' THEN RAISE EXCEPTION 'Invalid ULID: %', ulid; END IF;

v = regexp_split_to_array(ulid, '');

-- 6 bytes timestamp (48 bits) bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 0, (dec[ASCII(v[1])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[2])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 1, (dec[ASCII(v[3])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[4])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 2, (dec[ASCII(v[4])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[5])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[6])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 3, (dec[ASCII(v[6])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[7])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 4, (dec[ASCII(v[7])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[8])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[9])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 5, (dec[ASCII(v[9])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[10])]);

-- 10 bytes of entropy (80 bits); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 6, (dec[ASCII(v[11])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[12])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 7, (dec[ASCII(v[12])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[13])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[14])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 8, (dec[ASCII(v[14])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[15])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 9, (dec[ASCII(v[15])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[16])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[17])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 10, (dec[ASCII(v[17])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[18])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 11, (dec[ASCII(v[19])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[20])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 12, (dec[ASCII(v[20])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[21])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[22])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 13, (dec[ASCII(v[22])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[23])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 14, (dec[ASCII(v[23])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[24])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[25])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 15, (dec[ASCII(v[25])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[26])]);

RETURN bytes; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE;

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ulid_to_uuid(ulid text) RETURNS uuid AS $$ BEGIN RETURN encode(parse_ulid(ulid), 'hex')::uuid; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

UUID to ULID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION uuid_to_ulid(id uuid) RETURNS text AS $$ DECLARE encoding bytea = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; output text = ''; uuid_bytes bytea = uuid_send(id); BEGIN

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

Gera 11 Digitos aleatórios: YBKXG0CKTH4

```sql -- Cria a extensão pgcrypto para gerar uuid CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

-- Cria a função para gerar ULID CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION gen_lrandom() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE ts_millis BIGINT; ts_chars TEXT; random_bytes BYTEA; random_chars TEXT; base32_chars TEXT := '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; i INT; BEGIN -- Pega o timestamp em milissegundos ts_millis := FLOOR(EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM clock_timestamp()) * 1000)::BIGINT;

-- Converte o timestamp para base32
ts_chars := '';
FOR i IN REVERSE 0..11 LOOP
    ts_chars := ts_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((ts_millis >> (5 * i)) & 31) + 1, 1);
END LOOP;

-- Gera 10 bytes aleatórios e converte para base32
random_bytes := gen_random_bytes(10);
random_chars := '';
FOR i IN 0..9 LOOP
    random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) >> 3) & 31) + 1, 1);
    IF i < 9 THEN
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, (((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) | (get_byte(random_bytes, i + 1) >> 6)) & 31 + 1, 1);
    ELSE
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) + 1, 1);
    END IF;
END LOOP;

-- Concatena o timestamp e os caracteres aleatórios
RETURN ts_chars || random_chars;

END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; ```

Exemplo de USO

```sql -- Criação da extensão caso não exista CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto; -- Criação da tabela pessoas CREATE TABLE pessoas ( ID UUID DEFAULT gen_random_uuid ( ) PRIMARY KEY, nome TEXT NOT NULL );

-- Busca Pessoa na tabela SELECT * FROM "pessoas" WHERE uuid_to_ulid ( ID ) = '252FAC9F3V8EF80SSDK8PXW02F'; ```

Fontes

• https://github.com/scoville/pgsql-ulid
• https://github.com/geckoboard/pgulid