Yondu

One example: post couriers are not responsible for the contents of the envelopes, thats why they can work with very low salaries, but more or less worldwide. Smuggling of narcotics is other thing and it is (rightly IMO) prosecuted. Having a contract of delivery of some yacht you are always risking that you don’t know what is inside and if stopped and found something prohibited - full crew is liable as you cannot prove the contents are not yours. Thats why such contracts are not very cheap and usually working within web of trust which includes clients.
If building such delivery network - the question of responsibility of the couriers for the contents of the package is the first one to address; without resolving it, it will always be an expensive smuggling alternative, not a working network.

2026-06-23 11:39:42 UTC

- reply

One more thing to think about:
Risks for the couriers. Taking the sealed package and delivering it means you may be transporting anything, including narcotics or anthrax. It will work only: either if very well paid to get couriers interested despite these risks (costs will be prohibitive for general mail), or somehow ensure having trusted senders or verified package content. With smuggling people during WW2 it was at least honourable and visible what you are doing, so people were participating willingly despite the risks, but with commercial service it should be solved differently.

2026-06-13 08:14:50 UTC

- reply

For what purpose you use cookies on your website? Was it strictly necessary? Just curious, strange to see it there considering your app specifics.

2026-06-10 09:58:52 UTC

Primary creators by @npub1m2m…r8p9 usually are not building out of themselves as silkworms. They were raised in some culture and had parents, friends, foes, talks, books and overall environment which formed them before they started creating. Also usually (though not always, see Van Gogh) they should not be starving themselves, and definitely their family should be all right or they should not have one - creativity is not very good aligned with a requirement to feed your children in poor conditions.
// Hypothesis: there are different % of "primary" creators in the US and North Korea or Central Africa. BTW, maybe this is incorrect, and numbers are similar; in this case this is something genetical like mentioned psychopathy.
Also they are almost always building on top of the basis of what was built before them. Kopernik knew about Ptolemey, Einstein knew about Newton and all of them knew not-so-basic math. Brothers Wright knew about countless attempts to fly before their time (and probably of Leonardo's ideas too). Even great writers were reading books before they started writing.
However, putting aside question of whether primary creators are doing this out of themselves (IMO they don't), the concept of owning your actions (active vs. reactive) and doing them not for installing yourself in the existing system, but to create something new and parallel to the existing, and do so without help from the existing powers - this probably something what was implied here, and if so - this quality is definitely rare and should be encouraged.
What I'm trying to say - is that we should not mix up these two concepts:
1) owning and executing action which is not aligned with current systems of power, but parallel (or perpendicular) to them;
2) doing it only by your own ideas, something which was not tried before.
1 - is commendable and should be encouraged.
2 - is most probably impossible, so should not be the criteria. Even BTC is done by smartly combining existing things and trying for the N-th time what has failed every single time before. As with the most of the inventions. People going to the space know that this is possible, though dangerous. Nobody builds from zero. And even their desire to build something is caused most probably by sum of all their previous experiences, internal impulses and external conditions and not by themselves sitting, meditating and intentionally deciding to do this.
IMO we should focus on 1.
Discuss.

2026-06-08 17:03:04 UTC

With all due respect - a couple of comments on recent @npub1vmu…hxee talk on ZEC vs. BTC:
1. Privacy dependence on value at rest. —- this is not really working en masse, at least until fixed. How many people do know about this caveat? How many will not forget about this in a year after the talk? Yes, you can achieve privacy with ZEC if you know what you are doing, but then you can achieve it even with BTC.
2. Store of value. —- Privacy coins are under the fire from governments: gov don’t want people to make untaxable transactions or hide wealth. You cannot just issue your private money and work with them in any major community. Then what prevents gov from outlaw privacy coins? Say 20 years of prison for anyone working with it, same as for heroine or counterfeiting for that matter. They did similar for gold in the US in 19xxs if I’m not mistaken. They are slowly starting this for XMR now, why not for ZEC? ECC is trying to sit on two chairs being both regulatory-friendly and optionally private, and usually this ends badly.
3. As far as I know the decentralisation is not really here as of now. You can pressure the devs, so it has the same attack surface as, say, ETH, SOL or even as any of USDT/USDC. Don’t look as very uncensorable project. Or is there any recent change?
4. Question: Why ZEC and not XMR? Any particular reason?
Discuss.

2026-06-02 16:47:03 UTC

If you by any chance need to find someone's last posts on twitter and try to go without login to their twitter page, you will get just a broth of the posts without any structure. If you need to see the latest posts first (without login ofc)- use https://xcancel.com/ - online instance of nitter. Probably most of the people know that already, or anyway it's one click away, but I just found out, so sharing.

2026-05-30 12:51:18 UTC

- reply

And why you think it would be a good idea to write such an article with specific names on it? Sounds a bit like an instruction. Of course we will have them sooner than later, but why to help speeding it up?

2026-05-21 12:07:25 UTC

- reply

I found this one which is the closest to your description, but it is not 4m but 2,5m… looks like the good one, and there is no 4m wide ones which I could find… https://cielohamacas.com.mx/products/ochil-matrimonial-algodon

2026-05-20 17:30:01 UTC

- reply

Any suggestions how to buy it from Europe?

2026-05-12 21:58:20 UTC

- reply

Very cool and all you said about local regulations and relationships with local authorities totally makes sense. Thanks and good luck with your project!

2026-05-11 22:12:42 UTC

- reply

e.g. now it's OK for person to own cattle, but not slave.
I'm quite sure that in case the humanity survived 5-10 more centuries, the rights of animals would be equally respected by many of our descendants, and they would argue that this is quite "natural law" for them.
I'm even not starting to talk how people now are treating AIs or robots with LLMs or their pets. No slaves, really?
In ancient Greece or Rome also were citizens and slaves; nothing wrong for a citizen to have a lot of slaves. What natural law?

2026-05-11 22:04:02 UTC

- reply

That's a very interesting question.
I don't understand well Kant's imperative in his standard form: "behave as if your action essence would become natural law". For me it's too vague. If I'm saving my child of many children - should the law to be to save my child or their own child? Even supposing the latter, I know a lot of people who would say "no, you shouldn't save your own child in case this will immediately cause 10 million deaths" (I disagree, but a lot of people would say that). So what would be a natural law in this case?
And Kant is not saying there is natural law, he says "behave as if it would be", but for me the meaning of his words here might be much more prosaic, i.e., "behave as you should; so that not to feel guilty later" - this is mostly aligned with Value Ethics (as opposed to Consequentialists and Deontological, both of which have their huge drawbacks) and very-very local, down to each person and his/her own choices in each moment, nothing of "universal right" or "universal rules" here.
I would ask back: how ANY principle in people relationships CAN be generally right or wrong?
E.g., principle: "do not murder". I'm sitting in the restaurant with a lot of children and seeing terrorist which came and start mass shooting. Shouldn't I kill him if I can?
About the declaration of human rights: I like it. Very good document, very idealistic. I would like to live in the world where this declaration is respected by many governing bodies. However, no of the mentioned rights are "natural law" as we can see every day. They are not respected and a lot of people will not think of these rights as the "natural law". They are just the reflection of the state of liberal minds raised in the culture of Western society of the second half of XX century. If you would ask people in XII century - they would see the concept quite differently; also if you describe it to the modern people in rural China or Russia, Iran, UAE, Laos, mid-African tribes etc. - probably each of them will point out some of the Articles of this declaration as blatantly wrong.
So my view is - no, there is no universal truths in people relationships and societies. There is always local cultural context which defines which action is good and which is bad, and this is derived from the current societal norms in the specific place and time which in terms rooted in evolutionary theory and survival of the societies/lineages and people inside of them. Value ethics is quite on spot IMO.
The silver rule you mentioned (don't do to other what you wouldn't like to receive yourself) is the rule of thumb, very good euristic on how to survive in current Western society. This is not "natural law" but just the rule which was proven useful during last centuries. Maybe later it will be wrong, in different society, and even now it is not uniformly advantageous but depending on the context (see above).

2026-05-11 18:41:00 UTC

- reply

Personally for me this looks like an idea to be stopped immediately and founders to be outlawed (probably with jail terms) due to their incompetency and not-caring about fellow Earth inhabitants.
They don't have any consent from anyone below.
There is atmosphere on Earth if they don't know. It is dissipating light. It will not light on spot, but it will light up the sky.
They mix up with systems they don't understand (nobody does).
Do they know how having light in the night sky will impact animals? Birds? Insects? Circadian rhythms?
Some decades ago in the USSR was the project of "reverting Siberian rivers", which was thankfully stopped. Another similar project leaded to the Aral sea becoming the polluted desert. It was very small-scale project.
Is there any petition to stop it?

2026-05-11 18:26:03 UTC

- reply

Thanks for sharing your summary, good food for thoughts. Do not take my critique as a critique of your work. This is just also the food for thought, maybe this might help if you meditate on it a bit even if it seems wrong at the first glance. As you definitely are interested in searching the truth.
I found the same with Seneca letters: the best ones were which I was completely disagree with in the first three attempts to read.

2026-05-11 18:19:38 UTC

- reply

I used to know some (people would call them evil) persons who were very knowledgeable and absolutely not ignorant in comparison with usual person. They just cared about different things than many of us. And ready to sacrifice a lot for the "greater good".

2026-05-11 18:16:36 UTC

- reply

Incorrect, mixing up math (rule-based, hard logic) and socio (complex systems).

2026-05-11 18:15:16 UTC

- reply

Yes and no.
Yes in terms of owning the actions and body of sane adult.
A lot of questions. Is child sovereign? Is embryo? Is sociopath? Where is the border?
It took a village to raise a child. Does the child not owe anything to the village which raised him/her?

2026-05-11 18:07:49 UTC

- reply

This is factually incorrect. Established groups of live beings (especially which have cultures) are behaving absolutely different from the same number of single individuals.

2026-05-11 17:59:08 UTC

- reply

Thank you.
Agree about present/past - factual; future - can be influenced.
Agree about the imperfect models of reality which can be improved.
Respectfully disagree about the natural laws in science.
1. Math: there are definitely true/false statements, and here for the Truth with big T it can be said that it exists. As math is just the set of rules with logical connections superimposed on them, so by definition for any statement you can go back to previous theorems and finally back to axioms and see if any of the mandatory rules were broken in the process of derivation (false) or not (true).
2. Math derivatives: genetics, statistics, neurobiology etc. - same.
3. Physics, chemistry, astronomy, some part of biology and other natural sciences: There are models which are better than others; they are an approximation of what is going on in the Universe, with better or worse predictory strength. They serve the purpose of predictions and serve it well (we are using it to fly planes and rockets, dive with submarines etc.), but as any model are not covering all what is going on - only some aspects of it which are of interest for specific science. As Ptolemey's system was predicting the movement of Sun and planets well enough despite being wrong. Probably we will find out that our current "natural laws" which we consider correct will be proved wrong (better models will be found) by next generations of scientists, e.g. speed of light, corpuscular-wave dualism, theoretical physics postulates etc. All these models are possible because these natural sciences are dealing with inert (non-live) matter, objects and not subjects. All inert matter states and change of these states can be described and predicted with enough of compute power. This is so called "complicated" systems realm, which can in principle be predicted. But there is no Truth here. There are models, predicting better or worse what is going on, but they are just models, not the underlying natural laws. Newton laws and gravity is one example - this is good and useful model, but saying F=ma is Truth - is too strict IMO - we can have later better models for the same even if we don't have them now.
4. Social "sciences", psychology, complex eco-system-level biology, economy and other interpersonal or subjective treaties: Here we go into the territory of subjects and not objects, going from the realm of "complicated" systems (which can be predicted) to the realm of "complex" systems where predictions fail just because you cannot predict behaviour of complex system: any disturbancy of level lower than your sensors resolution or any non-calculable external impact can change the observable state of the complex system dramatically. Reproducible tests are impossible in principle in this realm and there are no "natural laws" here, nor any kind of general "Truth" which is the same for different subjects. You might derive some very basic and general patterns which are valid for the most of the situations in the particular slice of Reality, but not for all of them and this will change dramatically with change of viewpoint, change of subjects, change of your slice of Reality you are working with or change of time.
We may say "natural laws" are unchanging in natural sciences, as they are more or less static even if not perfectly known, in the first approximation. We definitely may say so about mathematics and its derivatives.
But not with wider application, especially when we start talking about complex systems - live beings, psycho, persons, societies etc. Here there is no Truth whatsoever.
There is probably no "hard unchanging laws" anywhere in Reality, all the laws are our models, but the Reality just is (at least per our current best knowledge if we don't go into religious views or simulation hypothesis). There is no table in the skies where G constant is deliberately chosen to be 6.67*10^-11..., this is just our interpretation of what is going on with massive bodies around us.

2026-05-10 17:54:00 UTC

- reply

Yes and no.
"create the new truth second by second" and "the truth is what never moves" - are contradictory. But this is not the main problem.
Truth is very hard to define. Phenomena objectively happening independent of what you think about it - yes, this is something which can be called truth, with a lot of caveats such as the definition of participating objects and space/time/other boundary conditions. Scientific experiments or repeatable natural observations are the closest to this "truth" concept in any local space/time while any inter-personal, subjective or social phenomena are almost by definition non-truth in this case.
Seeking for "objective truth" in any way except strictly scientific usually causes a lot of suffering as most of the great atrocities are done in the name of "greater good" which may be also called "objective truth" as if you are not sure you know "real objective truth" you have no reason to make these sacrifices as you might be wrong after all.
In short: very probably there is no "objective truth", but there is one reality and a lot of views or models of it (any agent/living being has its own); some of them are aligning on what is going on in some part of the universe and this can be called local truth for this time and this space and these boundary conditions, but not more than that.

2026-05-09 22:29:26 UTC

- reply

A lot of mentioning of the Truth which itself is a very murky concept. Is there any Truth (with big T) in the people’s reasoning about, e.g. his motives of any specific action? I am absolutely not sure.

2026-04-27 17:22:12 UTC

- reply

To think about: How this will support the physical goods delivery (cocoa, tobacco etc.) which has to be done between the countries and hence is subjected to the export/import customs regulations where you have to present the contracts with prices etc.?

2026-04-20 18:28:54 UTC

- reply

Interesting. How you found the land to build on? Just bought it? What about permissions for building houses? In Spain you are not permitted to build on “agricultural“ land.

2026-04-07 06:41:27 UTC

- reply

Good sunny morning )

2026-04-06 21:38:52 UTC

- reply

Mine has four points: the valley, the city, the internet and the sea. The valley and city being similar to yours, but with internet being the place for the digital projects, and sea being the place to meditate. Pushing begins after some time in one place and is "from" the place where I am, but not "to" as "to" is not the one, but three. No, even four: there is a fifth point - the road, the state of moving. Maybe the main one.

2026-04-06 21:28:22 UTC

- reply

What the fuck is going on??? Really, I thought it must be an april fool's joke, but it seems not.

2026-04-01 17:27:39 UTC

- reply

I’m missing Ember’s posts, they were good.

2026-04-01 08:52:23 UTC

- reply

How this can be used contra (open) science? Don’t get it.

2026-02-26 17:44:24 UTC

- reply

Is this post written by you?

2026-01-23 23:05:18 UTC

- reply

Thanks! Let 100 flowers bloom.
But the congested network was meshcore or meshtastic? I think at that time it should have been meshtastic and this is exactly the reason why everyone is migrating from there to meshcore right now.

2026-01-23 22:59:25 UTC

- reply

50m from the entrance to the building in dense urban neighbourhood with my lora32 board as bridge inside the apt on n-th floor without any external BT antenna. Quite decent for BT I would say.

2026-01-23 00:02:34 UTC

- reply

v2 is working FLAWLESSLY with lilygo lora32 (v2.1.1.6) for bridge. Reconnecting automatically, keeps connected. My congratulations and big thanks.

2026-01-19 01:15:18 UTC

- reply

Have you witnessed the congestion in LoRa (on meshtastic? or?) in Portugal last year at the apagon day? Or this is just calculations?
As I remember people mostly just were listening to FM radio, but I'm not sure what was the real situation in 868mhz that day as I didn't have meshtastic installed.

2026-01-19 01:08:22 UTC

- reply

I 100% agree that reticulum is muuuuuch more work of art, starting from rnode and finishing with apps. I'm missing it every time I open MeshCore. Bitchat is also quite good - sleek and fast, but as to the MeshCore........ - this is a mess as of now, especially with the web app on mac, bugs on bugs on bugs... Though working somehow.

2026-01-19 01:01:52 UTC

- reply

Working with Lilygo Lora32.
Need to reload 3 times before the bridge is visible in the mesh group of bitchat, but finally bridging ) Cool )

2026-01-18 10:47:20 UTC

- reply

wow, really cool!! ))
Here there are not so many MeshCore nodes yet, especially outside of big cities. But it's really kind of start merging - Nostr, Bitchat, MeshCore, ... What is lacking right now - is coverage (not so many nodes even in cities, maybe in central Europe is different) and inter-city/inter-countries connectivity (virtually absent). Finally to bridge these local clusters into one network we will need either kind of signal towers - radio nodes placed on some mountains, within direct line of sight (with all the restrictions like power consumption, line throughput, vulnerability etc.) or kind of exit nodes with satellite comms. As the satellite network is growing, maybe this will be the simplest way in some years. But this would increase already big dependency on Musk's services, which is not good.

2026-01-17 23:56:44 UTC

- reply

also we are quite used to the async mode of communication since 200x (signal, emails etc.), it's hard to accept that if the receiver is not online and reachable right now (and with LoRa this is almost never the case) they just miss your ping or message forever. This is the next big thing for the mesh networks IMO - how to make the async messages work.

2026-01-17 20:59:42 UTC

- reply

Found the dynamic map of MeshCore nodes, here it is, much better than the standard one - can be filtered on last 7/14/30 days visible nodes, much more reliable:
https://analyzer.letsmesh.net/map
also there are another views at the same site - packets, channel, nodes lists etc. Very useful.

2026-01-17 18:26:55 UTC

- reply

I somehow was not able to answer in thread, but just quoted and the client created a separate note )))))
Here is it:
https://njump.me/nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqaxqu2303jxtw0gn5j4wu9v9r69kz9a9mkfe3cpzq9r6956y9qjuqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcqyzz94x2g6586u5u4zqwvklnpzw4uydr8gmj7ngw9rjsu5efljtm5qh7qlrn

2026-01-17 18:22:44 UTC

Here I also see huge amounts of MeshCore nodes popped up about 1-1.5 months ago, but they are in different locations from the Meshtastic nodes, so it seems that this is not that all old Meshtastic nodes just switched over during a couple of weeks, it's really a new and growing adoption. Did we have some big event with MeshCore presentation around the October-December? You need time to buy and install nodes. )
BTW, the similar map of Reticulum nodes does not have it's page on the Reticulum site as far as I can tell, but need to be searched separately: https://rmap.world/
Maybe this is also one of the small but important adoption things which make the difference.
Here is the map for Meshtastic: https://meshmap.net/ (also separate site)
Here is for MeshCore: https://meshcore.co.uk/map.html (here is for MeshCore, integrated)
BTW, why MeshCore is trademarked?? How sure we are about the trustworthiness of the developers, of the map and the quality of the software (e.g. in terms of encryption)?
#nevent1q…3fca

2026-01-17 17:38:31 UTC

- reply

I would say reticulum lacks the main thing: simple low-power solar node setup. In MeshCore you can just put LoRa motherboard and battery into the case with antenna and solar panel - and you are done. In Reticulum (if I'm not mistaken) you need also something like Pi to be installed nearby for encrypting/decrypting, and this means different order of magnitude power consumption which is not really compatible with a solar remote setup. Or am I wrong @npub1m2m…r8p9 ? I thought of trying to make a reticulum solar setup this summer by myself, but haven't done it yet, and for MeshCore there are many videos already on the YT, and many nodes installed in many places.

2026-01-17 00:23:48 UTC

If we consider the libertarian approach that the individual will is the final and ultimate goal and judge, then this could be truth only for the individuals which were raised in the total isolation, starting from the birth in some artificial womb and then having been isolated from any interactions with society during all their life.
This is definitely not the case neither for humans, nor for any of the animals on Earth.
Human is much more than just its body, and the mind of the human consists of the uncountable interactions not only of him (or her) during his life starting from the inception, but of interactions of all of his ancestors with their environment, back to the first living organism on the planet Earth. The latest part of this collective mind journey is usually called the culture, and this is exactly what makes human a human. Not the genes themselves, nor some magic individual free will, but the 4-d environment of the lineage, expressed in all its complexity, and resulted in the formation of this specific individual, with all his or her traits, likes and dislikes, emotions and thoughts. And to consider the individual will in the isolation of this complex environment is the reductionist approach not useful for any practical or theoretical purposes, as all the models which can be build on this basis will probably be very far from the reality.

2026-01-14 23:52:45 UTC

*The Third realm as the mix of private digital communication platforms and low-key in-person interactions in the random physical spaces*
Every *fixed* Second-realm location in the non-failed state will be at some point of time discovered and infiltrated with the state agents and then it will be raided with dire consequences for many of its long-term members and random people just present there in the wrong time.
There probably should be the Third realm, which is not the First one (physical state territory), nor the Second one (parallel fixed structures existing at the same territory e.g. parallel polises, bitcoin meetups etc.), but the mix of:
1) fixed networked pseudonymous structures (Nostr, Signal groups etc.) with
2) real-world low-key and low-number interactions like meeting of two people to exchange goods in some random place at some random time, agreed in advance through these fixed digital means of communication.
Vexl is working more or less to this end.
Thus the impact of possible physical violence will be very limited. For this there need to be implemented some kind of reputation and safety monitoring for the members of digital communities, so that it would be visible if people around some of the group members suddenly get into troubles. There should *NOT* be big meetups where many of the members of the relevant group (opposing to the state) would be present at the same time.

2026-01-04 02:25:02 UTC

The library I use every month: Z-library via Tor.
After free registering you may download up to 10 books daily.
I'm yet to encounter a book in English which is not there.
Access via Tor: http://bookszlibb74ugqojhzhg2a63w5i2atv5bqarulgczawnbmsb6s6qead.onion/
Access via other browsers: https://www.reddit.com/r/zlibrary/wiki/index/access/
Pay attention to the scam sites, there are a lot. The correct sites are listed by the link above.
If anyone suggest Discord - this is scam, z-library don't use it.

2024-11-18 21:23:14 UTC

Important correction for the nocoiner-syndrome paper, page 9:
"Bitcoin is not going away; it is now a more important reserve asset than silver or the British pound. This means that if we weight risk of Bitcoin, it might be a better idea to enter the Bitcoin economy now than it was in 2010. The risk is gone."
The risk that bitcoin will go away is NOT gone, it is still there and will be there for the foreseeable future. One part of the risk, specifically the risk of not being able to take off, is gone. Say, it was in the range of 99.0-99.9% probability. Another big part of the risk, specifically possible ban (and legal prosecution of the owners of bitcoin) from the state authorities of the major states also seems quite diminished for the time being. But other parts of the risk are still there, namely:
1. possible catastrophic bugs
2. attacks on cryptography algorithms from newer vectors like quantum computing (but not only this)
3. new distributed coin with better qualities, which could flip over bitcoin
4. splitting the network into separate segments - physical or logical, including possible splitting of the bitcoin into several types (white, black, ...) with different prices and utility
5. hacking attempts on the broad spectrum of vectors, which will be the more intense the more value will be concentrated in bitcoin network
6. outlawing of non-custodial wallets and mixers, and moving most of the bitcoin to the state-controlled entities with full control and taxation
7. mining pool wars between the states or corporations
Many of these risks will be more prominent during next years and decades with current trends of the development of the newer AI systems and governments trying to get more and more control over the citizens of their countries.
// Please share with authors. @npub1sma…sdx0

2024-08-26 19:14:57 UTC

- reply

Sorry. Very dubious thing this Declaration... ((( A lot of self-contradictory, narcissistic and just false statements, seems like being written by honest and hot but just 18-years olds without much thinking or experience or knowledge of the world. Paul Rosenberg has much more sense. If I wasn't aware of real normal libertarians with common sense and had this as a typical example of libertarian thought, I would consider all libertarians as just another hormon-ruled mob of youngsters. Who a lot of libertarians are in fact, which is a pity and a hindrance for any practical action from them.
just for example:
"we oppose aggression, and coercion" and then "We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses." and "when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule" --- for real? how exactly they will bite without aggression? Do they have means to bite back of this is just words? I would bet for the latter, who can - don't talk.
"if you come after us, there will be consequences" --- oh really? What for example, again without aggression?
"we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life", "we suffered along with everyone else" --- reads as just one more woke and contemporary "touchy" thing, oh we are so suffering and this is so unearned... I'm not suffering, don't know why they are...
"We are no longer your citizens or your subjects." --- will they require to burn the passports and IDs to be included? If not, this is just words.
"You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions" --- nobody claims control of my decisions, don't know about theirs...
"those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human". --- this is just wrong and false statement (as a lot of other stuff inside); even rulers don't hate or kill every sufficiently independent human, mostly they didn't care if you don't touch them.
Better declarations are available

2024-08-24 20:47:05 UTC

- reply

Thanks Juraj for the warning, I didn't know this. Brrrr in fact... Ducks would be better IMO ))