Author of The Graysonian Ethic (Available on Amazon, pick up a dead tree copy today) Also Author of Future Sepsis (Also available on Amazon!) Admin of the FBXL Network including FBXL Search, FBXL Video, FBXL Social, FBXL Lotide, FBXL Translate, and FBXL Maps. Advocate for freedom and tolerance even if you say things I do not like Adversary of Fediblock Accept that I'll probably say something you don't like and I'll give you the same benefit, and maybe we can find some truth about the world. Ah... Is the Alliteration clever or stupid? Don't answer that, I sort of know the answer already...
Public Key
npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z Profile Code
nprofile1qqspdgr64vkr0exz7q3g8j86arnwsreprqxhuqj6nlfjz406v3d59acprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntqyqquyvntu
Show more details
Published at
2026-07-21T00:11:00+02:00 Event JSON
{
"id": "cddf3dbd2d7f61c468db5ef5f6c7c058953d378b8d964c793675fec27e164739" ,
"pubkey": "16a07aab2c37e4c2f02283c8fae8e6e80f21180d7e025a9fd32155fa645b42f7" ,
"created_at": 1784585460 ,
"kind": 0 ,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "{\"name\":\"sj_zero\",\"about\":\"Author of The Graysonian Ethic (Available on Amazon, pick up a dead tree copy today)\\n\\nAlso Author of Future Sepsis (Also available on Amazon!)\\n\\nAdmin of the FBXL Network including FBXL Search, FBXL Video, FBXL Social, FBXL Lotide, FBXL Translate, and FBXL Maps.\\n\\nAdvocate for freedom and tolerance even if you say things I do not like\\n\\nAdversary of Fediblock\\n\\nAccept that I'll probably say something you don't like and I'll give you the same benefit, and maybe we can find some truth about the world.\\n\\nAh... Is the Alliteration clever or stupid? Don't answer that, I sort of know the answer already...\",\"website\":\"https://social.fbxl.net/users/sj_zero\",\"picture\":\"https://social.fbxl.net/media/ab889b57768e0184d55bf35559fe50b951b93250ffe411cb8a7e7243b65a9415.blob\",\"banner\":\"https://social.fbxl.net/media/2d968b19b83f3eb4d376e9de5defa9615ff8f4ba98a5fd104e5a28610f7bfd04.png\",\"nip05\":\"[email protected] \"}" ,
"sig": "f39e1fc9b452002d25edfee89365e0edc076d6a099e3701fc8586016583ec384701ee562afd8f36756ac3a610e71ce579a777596fda143e2f429466d7da42ec7"
}
Last Notes npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero And? Do we stop enforcing just this law against spouses of government employees, or should we stop enforcing all laws against them, up to and including things like laws against murder? Just so we have an understanding of what is implied by this story. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero It won't be a VPN ban, because of VPN ban would immediately impact millions of people in the laptop classes which includes millions of people who work for the government. It'll be a ban on using VPNs for unapproved purposes. Which in some ways is much worse because it's like a digital feudalism. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Jean Baudrillard's simulations and simulacra describe how you start with reality, and reality is then simulated and eventually the simulation is simulated to create a simulacrum, and the original reality may in fact cease to exist. This toy really reminds me of that. There was once a thing as a rotary phone. The rotary phone was simulated in a children's toy. Then the children's toy itself is simulated in another children's toy, and meanwhile rotary phones have disappeared, and in an example of hyperreality, the reference to reality has disappeared entirely and the toy which is the simulation becomes an icon which is represented separately from its original context. https://social.fbxl.net/media/f021c6cd2104e9e639d88b0600934b9154ff05524d318ebeb810d52a11caf1d4.jpg npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero But then you'd need a computer and an internet connection, and where is anyone gonna find that? npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Turns out people die in the winter in New York? I'm shocked. Shocked! npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero well, yeah. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Our prime minster waggled his finger at Trump for the loss of the "rules based global order" when his predecessor of the same party illegally siezed bank accounts of peaceful protesters. Oh, there are rules? Doesn't seem like it. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero As a foreigner, I endorse this message. It'd be nice if some of these world leaders would deal with the problems in their own countries rather than talking about what they would do if they were the president of the United States of America, cuz they're never going to be that. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Not the turtle flu! I hear it can break through very powerful defenses! npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero It took me uncomfortably long to realize you were actually talking about horses. I thought I'd share because I think that's kind of amusing. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Imagine for a second, asking Google Gemini what is 1+1. You light up internet architecture spanning thousands of miles to a data center where you activate hundreds of gigabytes of memory, activate multiple top end GPUs, utilize non trivial pumping and water taken from a nearby river, and it responds back "Hi, I'm Gemini, the helpful AI assistant. I'm afraid I don't know how to do that yet." npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Trump did the same sort of stuff to canada, and we did the same sort of retarded mean girls bullshit. It didn't work, because it turns out we need them more than they need us. If Europe broke with the US, first thing they'd have to negotiate is Ukraine's surrender. I very much doubt that there will be a hostile takeover in the sense of troops on the ground, but in the New York businessman sense of a hostile takeover, I can absolutely see it happening. He doesn't need to put a single soldier in harms way, just play hardball and make them an offer they can't refuse. Now will he successfully do that? No clue. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I think the most interesting thing is realizing what the Pharisees are intended to represent. Their greatest sin is mindless adherence to the rules without proper concern for what is just, or what is true. There's obviously direct parallels with today. A lot of people are so focused on following arbitrary rules that they don't care about the justice or truth of their actions, only that they're following the rules. And of course some people misread that criticism and assume that it means we never have to follow the rules, but the reality is of course we need to follow rules, but we also need to use our brains to make sure that the application of the rules is both just and true. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero It's true. Imagine an America where I'm a citizen. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero People who have to make stuff on their own and convince someone else to buy it know that you really have to think about your audience, or at least try to make something you think people would want to buy. Most of these idiots grew up thinking that wet roads cause rain, so the only reason big companies had stuff that was so popular is that they have lots of money for advertising, so if they get into the big companies they can make whatever they want and the big companies can advertise it and everyone will have to watch whatever dreck they puke up. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero The Democrats lost the last civil war, why are they trying to start another one? npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero LLMs can be clever at times, but anyone who has ever tried to use one to solve a hard problem and gotten "This proves it. We're on the right track" for a few hours where it is clearly not on the right track knows agentic AI isn't necessarily such a good idea. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Satan isn't clever or evil enough to come up with something as horrible as online dating. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I didn't get my license until I was in my mid-20s, and so I have a lot of sympathy for cyclists. But man, I don't care which vehicle you're in, nobody likes the two vehicle types sharing the road. Cars and bikes are different things. Even Cars and motorcyles are different things, but at least a motorcycle can usually out-accelerate a car. I'd prefer cyclists be allowed to stay on the sidewalk as long as they're not going excessively fast and not running into anyone. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero It's going to be like the Dare program. Within three generations they're going to legalize the rule of thumb. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I haven't posted it yet, but I did a full analysis on this. The thing is, proportionality still lies on the cops side, and it would probably be on the cops side no matter what, even if it wasn't a cop. When you try to run someone over with your car, or at least if someone believes that you are trying to run them over with your car, proportionality says you are already using deadly force, so using deadly force back is justified in defense. And I would push further, and say this isn't an America thing. If you try to run over a law enforcement officer in europe, or in the uk, or in japan, or in china, or in canada, pretty much every one of those places would consider that police officer justified in pulling their gun on you. You just don't have a right to run people over with your car. Don't do it, it's a bad idea. Earlier mountain_jay talked about the fact that the shooting wasn't necessary, and and I think that that's a separate question from whether it was justified. Legally and morally speaking, when that lady hit the gas when someone was immediately in front of her car, if she got shot it was her own fault almost anywhere. But I would tend to agree that this isn't like that white SUV that happened the same day where the guy turned around and went to run the cop back over three more times. I'm guessing that based on the fact that the police officer did survive, that things would have turned out much better if he hadn't. She would still be going to jail, but she would still be alive. But, that's something that's easier to say with perfect hindsight. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero In the situation with that lady who FAFO'd, I have the most sympathy for the young child. I read that the woman was a widow, so that child already was growing up without a dad. Then this lady left her home in Colorado to get involved with something that had nothing to do with her in Minneapolis, and now that kid is an orphan. You can have all the political opinions you want, but confronting armed federal agents is a young person's game. It's still dangerous and stupid, but at least you aren't digging two graves. When you're a parent, your life no longer belongs to just you. You have a responsibility to this life you created. Heading out and getting mercked by driving your SUV at federal agents, you didn't just give up your life for something stupid, you just gave away something that was no longer entirely yours to give. Now that young child has to grow up without either parent. Honestly, raising your children ought to be the meaning of your life. It has far more actual impact than some stupid protest in another state. It's a full-time job with 2 parents, and more than that if you're a widower with the father. I know that even being married, I wake up in the morning doing my duty as a father, spend the day doing my duty, and might get an hour or two at the end of the day to relax. It's a double marathon, even with a great partner. There's no time to be trying to run down federal agents. Incidentally, this isn't a hypothetical. I agreed with the trucker protests in Canada, I had time off during them, and guess what? I didn't go. I watched viva frei attend them on YouTube with my son drinking his bottle on my arm, because that's where my place was. New relationships happen, but data consistently shows that birth parents are wired different. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero All the way back in aristophanes: "we will have a society where everyone is equal and nobody needs to toil!" "but who will do the work?" "The slaves!" npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Once you make free food, Free water, free shelter, free healthcare human rights that must be provided or you're satan, why not free sex? I'm not even necessarily saying that from for example the standpoint of saying that universal healthcare should never exist, but there's a difference between making something available through the state because it's a nice or useful idea and making something available through the state because there is a duty or obligation to provide that thing, and if they are failing to then they are committing some crime against humanity. In the example of healthcare, it's a nice thing to have while society is Rich enough to provide it, but if society ceases to be rich enough to provide it then that service has to go away. In that case it ends up being a government provided service that is not a fundamental human right. As fundamental human rights, both healthcare and sex require a specific person in the sense of an individual with certain attributes that are not common. Institutions do not provide health care, doctors do. The doctors are particularly intelligent and particularly hard-working people, energy universal sex care system, the state prostitutes would be particularly attractive men and women. And then you get into the stickiness of making healthcare a human right and some healthcare procedures are effectively murder. For example, if doctors are forced to provide medical assistance in dying or forced to provide abortions, then they are being forced to engage in murder. Is it really so morally different forcing someone to have sex versus forcing them to commit murder against their will? A lot of people will argue until they're blue in the face as to why not free sex, but perhaps the more important question is, why free murder? Demanding that we take resources from everyone regardless of their moral view to pay for this, not because it is a nice thing to do but because it is becoming human right that is a crime against humanity if you don't provide it, in both cases seems really suspect. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I'm sure there's nothing important going on. It'll be fine. #note1wjg…0fdj npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero But let's be real, not really. I can get on board with the general message you're trying to send here, but the United States has been fucking around in South America since Trump was in diapers -- and the political doctrine probably predates Trump's grandfather. Munroe doctrine goes back to the early 1800s, and is the doctrine that says "we reserve the right to fuck with things we feel are our interests abroad". As for south America in general, lots of regime changes and other fuckery occurred during the cold war without any formal declaration of war. Lots of regime changes and the like in the 1950s onwards. Lots of "police actions" that weren't declared by Congress, and nobody got impeached. Presidents of both parties have done similar things in the past without being impeached. Kennedy, johnson, nixon, Reagan, for the majority of the past century it's just how things were done, and generally people didn't like it but there were no consequences. You just call it a police action, and I think that Trump has, and a lot of people uncomfortably sit with that. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I wanted to take a trip to Minnesota to do some learing, but since the center shut down I'll take my business elsewhere. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Almost nobody is talking about the Renewalageddon in Canada. 60% of mortgages are set to renew in 2026. Unlike the US, where mortgage terms can be up to 30 years fixed, the overwhelming majority of mortgage interest terms are 5 years or less, fixed or variable rate. Variable rate mortgages have survived with similar payments so far because they stretched amortizations to 50 years, but the CMHC (canadian home mortgage corporation) is not allowing them to renew at those amortizations, so payments will rise more than the amount of the mortgage increase would imply. Fixed rate mortgages will be renewing at rates going from as low as 0.99% if renewed at trough mortgage rates for 5 years to 4-6%, which is going to massively increase house payments for millions of Canadians. For a sanely priced house (200-400k), that might be painful but managable. House prices in Canada peaked around 2021 at over 830k, and on a mortgage that big, moving from 1% to 4-6% will mean huge increases in monthly payments. Mathematically, it looks like we're facing one of the biggest financial crises in Canadian history and even though it's operating like clockwork, nobody is talking about it. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero If any company causes the AI apocalypse, it'll be Google with their Gemini. My Google homes recently updated, and I'll be like "hey Google, count from 0 to 30" and it goes "I can't count" -- despite counting just fine an hour ago. "Hey Google, sing the alphabet." "I can't sing" you did it an hour ago! I go "reduce volume by 10%" which is something it's fully capable of doing, "I can't change device volume" yes you can you wanker! Then you call it out and it's like "I am google Gemini, a helpful AI!" -- the hell you are! Gemini will nuke Moscow and I'll be like *what the hell Gemini you nuked Moscow!* And it'll respond "I'm Gemini! A helpful AI assistant!" npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero When these politicians say stuff like this, usually you can go back and find some huge lie that they've said. I always want to ask: "what punishment are you willing to accept today for your misinformation and disinformation?" Oddly enough, that doesn't seem like they thought that far ahead. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero The history of section 230 is that prior to 230 it was the law of the land that most internet services were not moderated at all and therefore the people operating the services had limited liability for anything posted on them unless and until it was reported. There was one early case involving compuserve, and because that server and didn't moderate editorial, they were treated like a newsstand that sells newspapers other people published, and so CompuServe was not liable for the individual things written by the posters. By contrast, There was a case involving Prodigy I think, where the service claimed to be moderated and thus safer for young people to go on to. This opened them up to liability because they asserted editorial moderation and some of the content they allowed through was found to be defamatory. Therefore, the state of the internet prior to section 230 was this: limited editorial moderation which limited liability for the things said, or editorial moderation where the website provider took on the liability for the things that were posted and also took on liability for damages when they moderate. If suction 230 were to be removed, this would be the way things would go back to. Legally, if you never made any pretenses of moderation, you would be protected from the individual things that people post. And if you did choose to moderate, you would be personally responsible for everything that was posted on your website. This is why a lot of free speech people were pushing for the abolishment of section 230 altogether, because at that point either everything becomes usenet again and largely unmoderated for editorial, for what remains becomes so fully locked down it would no longer be interactive. In other words, individuals who believe that abolishing section 230 would result in moderation that they like becoming the norm are likely incorrect. The more likely result would be that once section 230 was removed, remaining services that didn't immediately lock down would not have any editorial controls at all. But I should tell you that if you are on the political left, there's an awful lot of stuff that would immediately get taken down because no company would want to potentially be treated as the speaker of a lot of that speech. In particular, accusations that a certain company did X or that a certain individual did Y would almost certainly be banned out right because the company's running the platforms would not want to be "saying" such things in court. Of course on the political right there would be a lot of stuff taken down too, but not the stuff most lefties would want. Legally, there's generally nothing wrong with what is called hate speech, at least not in the United States. Therefore, we're talking about a certain company dumping talk to chemicals into a river maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, or making statements of fact about a certain politician maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, you can legally talk about your opinions on different races all day long. A lot of politically neutral services would likely be up in the air as well. Things like recommendation algorithms or monetization decisions could have to change to accommodate the elimination of section 230 and the resulting legal regime. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Physical media is irrelevant. You can have physical media that's so locked down that you don't actually own it. What's actually going to make a comeback is media that you control. If you have a Sony rootkit CD or a DRM-free floc file, the latter beats the former every time. If you have a physical disc of the video game spore which requires you to call into Central servers before writing your video game, or you have a drm-free copy of a similar game that you bought off of Gog, the latter is the only one you actually own. To that end, I've got a multi-disk NAS in mirroring mode with all my media, and I host jellyfin so I can watch it or listen to it using my own personal hardware, without any need to ask a corporate overlord permission to listen to my own music. I do have a large library of ebooks, but I've also got a a very real library of paper books on shelves, and short of coming around door to door, nobody can change the contents of either, but particularly not the dead tree books. It's a big contrast to physical media like what you can get on playstation, xbox, or the Nintendo switch. You can own the physical media for any of these consoles but without an internet connection be totally incapable of playing your games. Something that you increasingly need to pay attention to now is whether the hardware itself requires internet access and access to a central server you do not control. There have been a number of instances where for example people owned thermostats in their home and could not operate their furnace because the servers for the thermostat company had been shut down. Anyone with a Google video game unit should know that since the streaming service has been shut down they can no longer ever play any of the games that they bought for that. Even someone with an old Nintendo Wii my plug it into the wifi today and discover that many of the items on the home screen are like an old shopping mall that's about to shut down -- the old signs are there, but the real estate has been vacant for years. I was fairly lucky because I got to experience with this looks like firsthand over 15 years ago. Around 2008, there was a video game streaming service called gametap. It proposed that you would pay a subscription fee and be able to get access to an entire game library on your PC. Had some really good games on offer too, including the original fallout games. Two things occurred: first, is that streaming service lost the license for that video game, you could not play that video game any longer. Second, if you stop paying the subscription fee, you will lose access to all of your video games, and they also locked your saved games behind a paywall as I recall. That was a very early lesson for me how about the dangers of outsourcing ownership. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero "youth unemployment" is something near and dear to my heart because I know how hard it is to take off if there's no available runway. I came of age during a recession (the 2001 recession right after the dot com bubble burst. It caused my rust belt town to finally get massive layoffs at the local factory), and to me, youth unemployment meant losing a year of earning because all the people laid off from the town's factory ended up working menial jobs to keep the lights on. It had big effects on my health because I basically surfed the internet in my parents basement for a year, and also kept me from going to college for much longer than I would have liked because I wasn't able to save enough for college. Ironically, I did eventually end up getting a full-time job, and it was at a job that paid significantly less than minimum wage. In spite of the illegal wage, I was happy to have it because at least I could save money for college. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Stop eating you fat fuck(r) Ingredient: none Frequency: all the time Dosage: less food Mechanism: not eating so much Ask your doctor if stop eating you fat fuck (r) is for you. Not covered by most HMO or drug plans. I lost 80kg on stop eating you fat fuck. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I've got one machine where I do a lot of my routine stuff in a VM running Linux on top of windows 11. Media can be a little dodgy since it needs to pass sound through but besides that it's perfect. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero A bear with a bluetooth speaker I'm ok with, but I agree with you that an AI toy for a little child is really concerning. In fact, most technology given to young children without parental guidance is really concerning. I've heard reports of kids who go to kindergarten not knowing their own name. That seems stupid until you remember there's kids who are on tablets for hours and hours a day -- they're never referred to by their own name! Manmade horrors beyond our comprehension? ✅ npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero My mom got an "AI teddy bear", but it turns out it's just a Bluetooth speaker that uses a shitty app to produce shitty ai stories. So you can just use other apps using Bluetooth! npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Kind of really weird that people are calling trump a Nazi for eliminating state funded media. The Nazis loved that shit. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Freedom toons successfully funded their new animated series. That's nice to see. The more we support media from people who don't hate us, the better off the future will look. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero In the late '90s, I wrote into PC Games Magazine after a story talking about PCs vs. Consoles. My letter suggested that game consoles aren't going to be necessary in the future because emulators could play the video games. Ironically, I ended up being totally right. Even game consoles run emulators of other game consoles, and a lot of games you buy on PC are just a rom with an emulator. I think at this moment it's looking like PCs won a decisive victory. Microsoft is looking like they'll leave the console business, Sony's generation is sad, Nintendo has screwed up hard, and PC handhelds are better than ever. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Like what I often say about socialists hate boner for Hitler: There's nobody who hates socialists more than other, slightly different socialists. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Eliminate the income tax, watch how much more gets done and how much less needs to get done. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Skilled people are the means of production. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero When you think about it, the threats to steal if people don't get their SNAP are kind of futile. "Either we steal from everyone or we steal from someone" uh ok? npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I find it very hard to wrap my head around the fact that 99% of cases don't have drive bays anymore. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Trump's prayer before bed each night: Dear Lord in heaven, Please let my enemies be really stupid Because it would be so funny Amen npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero De Niro.... That's Italian, isn't it? Just saying, maybe the Italian should watch which world war 2 allusions he makes to a Jew. Funny thing. Apparently DeNiro's parents were born in the city of Ferrazzano, a small town near Campobasso in the Molise region of southern Italy. So any of his ancestors who didn't move to the United States during that generation likely would have been involved with Mussolini's regime the hear DeNiro's Dad was born. If I was a 4 foot tall actor doing something this embarrassing, I would cast myself from the top of my platform shoes. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero A lot of things that the left claims were invented by capitalism are pre-human. Things like hierarchy, territory, family, and many other concepts that they claim were invented by capitalist humans to subjugate others can be found in many other forms of life that never had a chance to learn it from humans. Part of the problem is that the left relies on scientific narratives that we now know to be objectively wrong. Rousseau's noble savage narrative assume that when completely left alone human beings will always be good and it was only society which makes them evil. This was based on science that was even kind of dodgy in his time, and now it's completely debunked and ahistorical, anthropologically speaking. That's a big deal because one of the reasons for example that leftists think we need to abolish the family is writings by Marx and Engels which incorrectly assume family is essentially a construct of late humans. Did you see this carried through in some anthropology, where they will find one female who was given a burial in warrior paraphernalia and they extrapolate that one thing to mean that before writing everything must have been in egalitarian and all of their ideas about gender existed. By that logic, the world must have been fully egalitarian in the 1900s because Marie curie and queen Elizabeth existed. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero My boomer dad regularly puts Linux mint on people's computers for them because it's like getting a brand new fast PC even on old hardware. It's been good enough for a long while now. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero DS9 is a paradox. It is some of the best storytelling in Trek, but it also fundamentally broke Trek. What it did was fundamentally break Trek by proving Roddenberry wrong; it turned out there is no utopia in the future, it just looked that way until an enemy came along that forced Starfleet to fight back for real. Shortly after DS9, that happened to the western neoliberal world order. Nothing else has ever come out since then that's really the same as what came before. Kirk and Picard, even early Janeway, they were no longer possible in Trek and that's one reason it's never truly recovered since. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero For all the slavery that happened in California. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I really hoped the trump administration would invoke the insurrection act because it would be really funny. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Mongolian throatholioioioio npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Sure is a good thing Canada is in great shape and there's nothing troublesome going on at all so they can focus on erasing people from the internet secretly. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero In countries where the government makes up 60% of GDP (Italy for example), can you really even consider it capitalism of any kind anymore? That 40% that isn't government isn't just the companies and rich folks, it's also the entire labor market put together -- so every single individual working for a wage. Which is nuts when you think about how insanely huge and powerful government is. (The US is about 30-40% if you include all 3 levels so less but still historically at totalitarian dictatorship levels historically speaking) We can never forget that there was no income tax for most people on Earth in 1900. Today, a blue collar guy can be paying 50% tax on the last dollar he earns, and that's before the many other forms of taxation that didn't exist previously. Include all those taxes and that same blue collar guy might be paying 50% tax on every dollar he earns. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Unless you're requesting asylum from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, or Spain, I don't see why you'd have a claim to asylum in the UK. Now, I can understand why you'd request asylum from France, but for the most part people from those countries are happy to sleep in the beds they've made. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Should people take life seriously or just be happy? I would say it's a false dichotomy. To be truly happy, you have to take life seriously. Taking life seriously doesn't mean taking every single thing you can't control seriously, of course. The wisdom of the stoics is important, but not focusing on things you can't control isn't the same as not taking life itself seriously and taking the things you can control seriously. I became a father in 2021 after a lifetime of thinking that was impossible. I released my first book about a month before he was born. Most fathers wouldn't publish a novel length book to their son, but I felt like it was important to get started. Being a father is one of only a few things in my life that have ever made me truly happy, one of the other things being my marriage. These two things are a big part of my life, and I take them both deadly seriously. That totally changes the calculus of things. Going outside, going for a walk, going to the park, they stop just being something you do for your own happiness, and start being something you do because you're serious about your life and that makes it important. By doing the things that aren't fun in the moment, by taking life seriously and treating it like something that matters, you do these things and fundamentally become happier because the things you care about succeed. Meanwhile, while I got to the park with my son 7 times a week some weeks, I see we're living in ghost world. The sidewalks are empty. The parks are empty. Everywhere is empty. Where are the kids? Obviously there's a lot fewer kids now that we aren't in a baby boom, but the truth is there's still plenty of kids but nobody takes live very seriously so they're just at home playing on their electronics and watching slop videos. In fact, I think taking life seriously and acting like it matters is how you make sure you're doing the right things and ensuring your happiness continues. Doing the right thing when nobody's watching is serious. Deferring gratification when it can pay off is serious. Raising your kids is serious. Staying connected to your wife or husband is serious. You ultimately end up with what Aristotle called eudaimonia, human flourishing. It's a deeper happiness than just being able to say you enjoyed doing something transient briefly. I finished my second book and first novel this year. I took writing it very seriously, and spent a lot of time thinking about what sort of world could make people happy. It wasn't a world of fleeting joy and lackadaisical attitudes. It's a world rich with meaning, where people take their lives, their communities, their responsibilities seriously. It's a world where people make commitments to the people around them, and that's where they find joy and meaning. We are free, so we are free to do the right thing that makes the world a better place to live in. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero If you want to piss literally everyone on the road off, drive the speed limit. But I'm not gonna stop. that's the limit, I'll drive the limit. Even if I do have a convoy of 100 vehicles behind me waiting for the road to split again. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Its interesting to me that the "media literacy" people dont know about their own postmodern form of media literacy called "death of the author" in which the intended message of the work is subordinate to the interpretation from the audience. Let's say that some dutch idiot made a movie set up like war propaganda because he assumed all war propaganda is fascist, then some people like it at face value because war propaganda isn't always fascist especially if you're fighting giant bugs. Under postmodern critical analysis, the viewer is correct regardless of their intentions. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero The rich aren't necessarily the problem, but they definitely are recipients of the benefits of the problem. Of course wages did stagnate because the labor pool grew massively, but the government wants you to own assets in part so that they can count the assets that you own. To incentivize this, they print a bunch of money and that money almost immediately ends up in the markets. Even when it doesn't end up in the markets, it basically ends up in the hands of government because a good chunk of it goes into bonds. So you have three different things going on at once: because the labor will grows the value of an individual worker goes down. Because of inflation caused by debt and monetary policies, just giving workers fairly low wage increases is actually a huge pay cut, and most of that money that gets printed ends up in financial assets so people who own assets instead of selling their labor and up wealthier. So once you reach a critical mass of assets, at that point basically you just keep getting richer and richer even though you're not actually doing anything productive. Elon Musk is my favorite example of this. Earlier this week he had hit $500 billion of net worth. The fuckin guy doesn't have any successful businesses. Tesla is a barely profitable car company, SpaceX is a barely profitable space company, Twitter is a barely profitable social media site, but he's learned how to play the game and so all of that excess money has to go somewhere and a lot of it seems to be going to his companies. You can't get that mad at him, if people kept throwing money at you what are you going to do, not take it? npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Sent you a DM, not sure if it federated. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Who said a nation can only be wealthy with oil? A nation requires access to energy, but you can access energy using methods other than just having oil. Free markets are useful for that. Unfortunately, the USA, China, and Japan are also all inconvenient examples of economic success, since they all became "rich" in part by overwhelming deficit spending and central economic planning. The problem is that eventually the amount of growth you get for the money slows and you're in a situation like Japan -- they're 30 years into a "lost decade", rates stuck at 0%, and the national debt is massive. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Thanks! It's nuts thinking about how quickly time goes. I published that right before my son was born (which was a good thing because I now realize finishing the publishing with a newborn baby in the house was never going to happen), he's almost 4 now. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero My first book is called The Graysonian Ethic: Lessons for my unborn son. It's a book of different essays with life lessons for my son (who is now born, of course). My second just got released this month, it's called Future Sepsis. It's a speculative fiction/science fiction book about four people from 2024 who wake up in 2124 and have to navigate a world that's different than ours. Two examples of the changes are that (at least in this location) religion is once again a much more central part of social and civic life, and education has been totally rewired to try to form virtuous people rather than people with diplomas, but there's a lot of differences that are revealed over time. My third book was mostly completed during the second, it's the philosophical underpinnings of the second book. I don't have a title for it yet, but the working title is "Meditations on post-metamodern superpositional epistemology". It started off as some appendixes to the second book, but I realized I had almost generated as many words in that as in the book proper and I didn't think that made sense to include by itself since a lot of people wouldn't be that interested in a bunch of esoteric discussions about a potential system of thought that might surpass postmodernism or metamodernism. I'm adding some work that's going to tie into a Future Sepsis sequel. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero One of the most interesting things in contemporary discourse is there a discussion of capitalism. When the concept of capitalism came about, it was in the throes of the industrial revolution. Employers really did have disproportionate power over the people working for them, and at the time the state was extremely weak. These ideas first began being discussed in an era where the French revolution had started and ended, and it looked as if the concept of an aristocracy was going away forever to be replaced by business owners. The problem is, time moves on and it isn't like that today. Among the things that have happened since the French revolution: the holy Roman empire collapsed and was replaced by a nation state called Germany. The concept of nationalism Rose. It was a century of relative peace in Europe. Those are Russia was murdered and the Communists took over that country. Nationalists from the Balkans murdered a German aristocrat causing a series of alliances to collapse upon themselves, resulting in a World war. That World war ended. Soldiers who were promised things during that World war ended up having major effects on the world including the bonus army who marched on Washington and German soldiers who ultimately took over the German government to form the third Reich. There was a world war triggered over that. A coalition of Germany, Italy, and Japan lost that war. The world economy and world political system was fundamentally rewritten. There was a cold war between the two remaining superpowers, and the communists ultimately lost. China became communist then became more like authoritarians with some markets. The entire labor movement happened fundamentally changing the role of labor. Meanwhile, people keep talking like the same capitalism that existed immediately following the industrial revolution was still in effect. It's absurd when you realize the entire world is different than back then. In Marx's time, the state was almost non-existent, and capital controlled our lives (and by the way capital was not a very nice benefactor of the working class), but more importantly the state was tiny -- 3-5% of GDP, providing essentially no services besides basic police and military. As well, the economy of that era largely no longer exists in the west. Factories are generally a relic relegated to developing nations. Company towns no longer exist. Cities like Sheffield which used to be titans of industry simply don't have those factories anymore. I have cutlery from the factories of the 1970s, which no longer exist. England is in fact a poorer country outside of London, the seat of government. Some people point to corruption like the relationship between politicians and businessesmen as evidence capital still dominates. This is ahistorical and gets it backwards: in eras that were definitely not capitalism, the power you needed to convince was the government, not capital. You try to corrupt where the power lies. Today, that is the state. It's always important to remember that virtually every one of the richest people on earth today isn't rich because they sold a great product everyone loved, but because they got in bed with government and did what government asked. Elon Musk may have 250 billion in net worth, but virtually nobody owns his cars. He got rich doing what the state told him to do. Bezos and Zuckerberg are both products of a massive public works project, the internet. Oil magnates sell to governments (the US government is the largest purchaser of fossil fuels on Earth, and the military industrial complex works to secure their military supplies). When half the economy is the state, it's a gravity well that pulls everything in. The people still talking about capitalism as if such a beast still exists today are tilting at windmills. They will ultimately be just as successful as Don Quixote, since just like that character, it is no longer an era of dragons and knights, of damsels in distress and quests. The world has moved on, and those models no longer apply. I can't get too deep into it because I'm still working it out for my next book, but today's system to me is either a modernist liberalism where previous iterations were more pre-modern, or postmodernist liberalism. No matter what, it went from a part of a more pluralistic world to a totalizing system that tears down anything else. This new form of liberalism doesn't try to protect existing rights but give new rights to people by taking from others, and in so doing the leviathan of the state grows more powerful. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero All that time they're spending around radical Muslims is rubbing off on them Press secretaries must wear burqas on the beach! npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Seems like you're not actually reading what you're responding to, or at least not understanding it, before you write. I started off by a summary of natural rights granted to men by God, then explained how constitutions limit government but are themselves part of a state that inherently limits your right. After that, I explained that the constitution is a political compromise from the time, the best everyone in the room could agree on. Then I explained how common law and constitutional rights intersect, and how they haven't intersected (as in, many things have been illegal since 1776). I showed a specific example of existing law that has existed in the United States for centuries that illustrates my point. Next, I brought it back to the point we're discussing, the assassination of a person and individuals not just celebrating but planning the next assassination online. After that, I pointed out the Kimmel situation, and how as an OTA broadcast medium it's a special case under the constitution. I closed out with meditations on the nature of classical liberalism, postmodern liberalism, and a metamodern or post-metamodern liberalism, and the corrupting nature of political violence to the whole system that allows liberalism and codified rights in the first place. None of which seems to have much of anything to do with anything you've written in response to it. You're responding with some news stories that made you mad, and a word that makes you mad -- and you're accusing me of being emotional. The word "collectivist" in this case refers to a frame where you are part of a community of individuals and you need to as a group need to arrive at rules you're all willing to agree on. Organized religion and particularly Christianity are inherently collectivist. You are part of the body of the Church, and your behavior affects the functioning of that body, and how that body is reflected upon by the world. You want laws to protect speech from employers, but that's a collectivist solution, not an individualist one. The sort of discussion you're having might flatter you into thinking you're having a real discussion about rights and freedoms, but in reality if you're just steering with your gut then you're one of the masses who ultimately lead to the end of liberty under democracy. I don't disagree with you that any one of the things you've mentioned is a problem, but that's unrelated to the discussion I've been having. There are a lot of governments that are pushing past the agreed upon limits in their constitutions or traditions, and that's bad, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't have the ability to limit freedoms. Unfortunately, the nature of government is that in order to do anything it always limits freedoms, so the question becomes about how to manage those limitations on freedoms. I was once a hardliner like you, but the more I learned about the most ideal system our planet has, the more I realized that the system doesn't work that way and can't work that way. You're making a moral statement in saying that speech should never be restricted, but that's not actually possible while having a working government. The key then isn't to as you seem to think I'm doing throw away freedoms. The key is to figure out how to best protect freedoms in the real world we live in. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Freedom to do what? One of the problems of the word "Freedom" is that it's a hanging signifier, it means everything and nothing. Freedom to murder people in the street and eat their flesh without consequence? Freedom to set off nuclear bombs in the heart of cities? The freedom to own slaves? Freedom to murder peaceful political enemies and to create lists of new people who ought to be murdered next? Many dictators use the word "Freedom". Adolf Hitler used the word often in Mein Kampf -- he saw conquering Europe and eradicating racial impurities in Germany as part of establishing freedom for the German people. Stalin used the word to invoke the idea of the working class being freedom from class oppression. Mao used the word to invoke the idea of freedom from colonialist powers who had caused the century of humiliation. Same with the word "rights". You can have a right to many things, including the right to oppress others. Freedoms collide with one another, rights collide with one another, and we need to figure out how to rationalize them. That's just reality bumping up against itself. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero If we're being honest, absolutely everyone is entitled to say bad things about Charlie Kirk. Honestly, his videos weren't my pot of tea. He always struck me as kind of a dick, making a big show of going on college campuses and arguing with dumb college kids. I know a lot of people have told me he was the nicest guy you'd ever meet but that wasn't my impression based solely on the media presence. And you know what? No one's going to have a single problem with anything I said above. I didn't celebrate his death, I didn't justify his death, I didn't willfully lie about the circumstances to make my narrative look better, and I certainly didn't say who needs to be murdered next. That's the problem with modernists. They can only see in black and white. They don't have a choice but to flatten complexity. That's why Charlie Kirk is dead, because they could only see disagreement as the exact same thing as calls for genocide, I know that he is dead and they are getting pushed back for calling for the deaths of more people they can only see mild criticism of the man and hysterical celebration of his death as the exact same thing because murder must be justified in the former case, and absolutely zero consequences must be justified in the latter. I think a lot of people have been confused as to why over last week or so they've seen a lot of posts from me working through the implications of things like Jimmy Kimmels show being canceled or the consequences have come about for the people who were celebrating the political assassination and calling for more. It's because the world isn't digital, and the answers aren't simple or permanent. Even Buddhist monks invented Kung Fu to protect their temples. The justification for murdering Kirk was essentially that by saying mean words he was literally Mass murdering people. Now these mean words tended to be things like "men and women are different" or "you shouldn't hire people solely on the basis of race because otherwise you're going to get people who aren't very good at their jobs because you hide them based on race," which has to be flattened because otherwise you look stupid. Meanwhile, people who are cheering for the political assassination, and calling for more political assassinations, they are saying that they're free speech is being violated for what they are doing but the reality is we're not talking about it calling Charlie a dick, we're talking about cheering for his murder and calling for more murders. All these people pleading free speech sure seem to have different standards for themselves than others because every one of the Free speech warriors was on top of the "disinformation and misinformation must be regulated" train, and now regulating disinformation is misinformation caused someone to lose their job and instead of celebrating they're acting as if it was a travesty. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero It's kind of interesting, I was in a discussion relating to this a day or two ago. The person I was discussing with make the claim that the constitution is perfect and all the founding fathers agreed on how different parts of the Bill of Rights should be interpreted, and so I just put the facts on the table of exactly how the founding fathers were acting immediately after founding. It seems a lot of people don't know how laws or sausages are made. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Yeah, everyone kinda figured the late night shows were going away anyway. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero If Jimmy Kimmel had been fighting for free speech against cancel culture for the past 10 years, I'd say "let's fight for the guy, doesn't matter if I disagree with him" But he's past of the faction that hasn't shut up about "silencing misinformation and disinformation", why should anyone? They're hoisted by their own petard. They wanted the government to regulate disinformation and misinformation, and now the government is! They should celebrate their win! Otoh, if Dave Chappelle wants to make a joke in poor taste about Charlie Kirk, I think I'd want to have his back because he did stand up when it looked like he'd lose everything for going against the crowd. Even if I disagreed with him. He's a man who earned his freedom in fire. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero >I think being able to freely express yourself without being prosecuted regardless of what it advocating is covered under the first amendment. Well, you think wrong. There's all kinds of things that aren't covered by the first amendment. It tends to be covered by strict scrutiny, meaning that you have to pass a 3 part test: It needs to be narrowly tailored, to address a compelling state interest, and it needs to be the least restrictive method necessary to achieve the end. Examples of limits to the first amendment include fraud, libel, slander, commercial advertising, tobacco advertising, uttering terroristic threats, impersonating a police officer, use of radio communications, and there's more where that came from. The ideal would have been to amend the constitution back in 1798 when the first Sedition Act was passed and the question of federal laws affecting freedom of speech first came up, but instead jurisprudence went this way long after that point, and the court never ruled on the sedition act. Looking into it, the first supreme court case regarding the line between freedom of speech and threats to people's safety didn't happen until 1919, because prior to the 14th amendment in 1868, the bill of rights didn't apply to individual states, and generally federal law wasn't used for that sort of think widely until the world wars. Even the 1919 case was under the Espionage act for an individual passing out flyers calling on people to avoid the draft. But don't get me wrong here -- I'm running my own instance solely because I do believe in freedom of speech, and when rubber meets road I don't domain block any instances or even block individuals on my own account. My main arguments here have been that it's complicated and nuanced and it isn't a deviation from principle to say that there's a line and some people might have crossed it. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero You can disagree with my argument, but you can't reasonably say it's absurd. At best it's wrong. A bunch of political violence keeps happening. They tried to kill Kavanaugh. They tried to kill Trump and they did kill Comperatore. They did kill Kirk. And the threats keep coming. The violence and the speech aren't equal and I don't think my argument ever claimed that directly, but the fact that violence keeps happening and people keep threatening more violence does mean that the two are much closer than disagreement would be. Context does matter, and nuance matters. If you want to flatten what I said into "speech is violence", then you're just the same as the progs -- modernist flattening of complexity into something that never existed. Given that my post had multiple paragraphs looking at things from different viewpoints and you collapsed it into four words, I suggest you might want to find someone who believes what you want to argue against instead of wasting your time on me. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero In The Graysonian Ethic chapter called Basics, I talked about how different rights bump up against one another. There's no such thing as rights that are absolute, unless you only have one right. It seems to me that a lot of people, both Leftist and Conservative, forget that the right to not be murdered is the basic human right, and so if someone is out there trying to violate that, that's not unpopular speech, but a potential violation of another person's basic human rights. People who follow up a murder by cheering for it and calling for more murders of specific people? They're walking a fine line and if they happen to trip I don't have much sympathy. On the other hand, disagreeing with someone who was just murdered or died for any other reason? Well, that could be unpopular but it's probably not reaching the level of violating another person's rights, since you don't have any right to have people say nice things about you. That being said, I think more people need to be pointing out that when someone says "but" after "no political violence" and then just uses the opportunity to talk about how they disagree with a person who was just assassinated, you're kind of erasing the whole "no political violence" thing by justifying political violence. At that point it isn't even about laws, it's about "Are you sure you disagreed with this guy so much that you think he should be assassinated?" because I don't think a lot of these individuals are thinking through the implications of what they're saying. I mean, if some dweeb arguing with dumb college kids deserves to be assassinated, then anyone on the left or the right probably deserves it. That doesn't sound like a fun world to live in. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero If someone tries to murder you with a gun in America, just say no. In America, murdering someone with a firearm is a crime, and therefore they will be forced to stop or risk breaking the law. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Can confirm: Canada is a psy-op. It's not real. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero The more stuff good people make the better the world is, so I'd definitely recommend trying. The key is that it's a small thing to ask if yourself weekly instead of a bunch of big things. When it feels like doing the laundry or mowing the lawn in terms of not being a bunch of time and just something you're in the habit in, it adds up fast. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Yeah, that's assuming that every book published in the US was published by a separate person, which we know isn't true, and that's cumulative over an adult's lifetime. Reality is probably much lower. And you're absolutely right with respect to the realities of being a writer -- I saw it with The Graysonian Ethic, that just because you write and publish a book doesn't mean you're going to make back the money you put into it, and it definitely doesn't mean you're going to have a bunch of sales. I do believe that there's a benefit beyond money. You're better for it, and if you've mad something remotely worth reading, then the small number of people who read your work come away a little better for it too. My sales goal for this book is to beat the average number of books sold according to Penguin House in their famous 2012 lawsuit, I'm aiming at 13 sales. After that I'm doing better than many published books. https://www.authormedia.com/publishing-industry-secrets-revealed-at-the-penguin-random-house-trial/?utm_source=chatgpt.com npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero At the beginning of this year, I decided I wanted to write a book. There were a number of trends in technology and society that I thought would be interesting to interrogate through narrative, and so I went out and did it. The book is called Future Sepsis (people who follow me might already know about it), and it'll be on most online stores soon. It's already on many storefronts now. The first thing that I really need to point out is that there are no shortcuts. The tools that I used were helpful and made actually doing the thing easier on the road or at home, but there was nothing special about them in the sense that it takes 9 months for one woman to have one baby, and you can make sure that she has good nutrition, you can make sure that she has good exercise, that she has the best doctors, and the best material goods like couches that are suitable for pregnant women, but it is still going to take 9 months for one woman to have one baby. When I originally started writing, I knew that I wanted to write a novel length book, so I made a promise to myself that I would write 1,000 words every week at minimum. If my goal was roughly 60,000 words, then it would take a maximum of 60 weeks to write the book. Any week where I got more than that done, my scheduled end date would move backwards. Thankfully, I found this to be a really smooth book to write, and so there were a lot of times I hit that 1,000 word mark and just kept right on going for two or three or 4,000 words because the story knew where it wanted to go and I was just chronicling the journey. For anyone else who wants to write a book, remember this: according to one survey, 80% of people think they "have a book in them". Only 50% want to write a book. Only about 4% of adults actually write and publish a book in their entire lifetime, and less than 1% write two books. Only one person on earth is Issac Asimov, so don't try to bang out a novel in a few full days of writing; prepare for long term commitment to achievable goals. I used two main tools for doing the writing: the primary one was LibreOffice. This book is split into four arcs, one introduction, and one epilogue. During the writing, I kept each in its own file which was in the nextcloud folder on my PC. In the bottom corner of the screen, it shows you the number of words in your current document, so I would write that weeks words and when I hit 1000 words I would know immediately. I would keep a blank document open with the section of the book I was working on at the moment, and when I was done, I would paste that section into the arc I was working on. I have an unusual life. I travel a lot for work, so I have two completely separate PCs: my home computer is in my living room next to my big armchair, my road computer never comes in the house, it's always wherever I'm traveling to. This was a problem in the past because I would have different files at home and on the road. Nextcloud changes the world for me in this regard, because I basically live out of my next cloud folder. I have all of my windows folders like desktop, documents downloads and so on in nextcloud, so I have all the same files once they've synced on both of my computers. It was particularly useful for writing this book because no matter where I went, I had the latest copy of my draft. Once I hit save, it would be sent to the server, and it would synchronize. The other neat side benefit of this is that if I want to work on my book on a computer that isn't either of those two, it is immediately available on my nextcloud website. I've got collabra set up so when I open the file, I get it a wonderful looking full office suite in my web browser. Nextcloud also provided another tool which I found incredibly useful: nextcloud notes he's a really lightweight way to right and keep a bunch of text. You can write on the website itself, and I do, but the other thing that's really helpful is the nextcloud notes app on f-droid. There were more than a few times where I had an idea for a scene, and I was at the store or out doing some other errand, and I was able to just pop open the nextcloud notes app, make a new note and start writing. Being able to just pop down a bunch of stuff wherever you are is surprisingly useful. In fact, I'm using that app right now to write this before I post it. Eventually, everything came together and it was time for the next steps. Amazon requests you to have your document within certain measurements, and so I have a template document that I produced when I made the Graysonian Ethic originally (my first book). One key for a few different things here is that you use the document styles to help you. You see, whatever is set as heading 1 will be what becomes a table of contents. That's true in the book itself, but it's also true when you exported to Mobi format afterwards. Therefore, for everything that you would like to have in your table of contents, you really should have it all as heading 1. For editing, I made use of the WritingTool libreoffice plugin. The built-in spell check is pretty minimal, and doesn't even have all the words that I used, but even without buying the special AI subscription that this plugin requests, you can still get a lot of good information out of it. In fact, you can also use a huge 8 GB file for suggested word choices, and it will help you further refine what you're writing. I chose to do my first pass of editing as one big file this way, and I just kept on going until writingtool was happy or at least ignoring all of the things that I told it I wasn't going to change LOL. I did one more editing pass after this one chapter at time, this one was for more specific things. I had a real bad habit of switching between past and present tense based on how excited I was about that particular scene. I had one moment during editing that was pretty interesting: when I'm writing normally, I handle most formatting in the document itself, for example writing this I will hit enter twice after I'm done a paragraph and that leaves a nice chunk of text. The more ideal way of doing that however is to let the word processor take care of it, so I opened up the files in notepad++ where you can find and replace using escape codes, and got rid of all double line feeds. Similar find it replace operations made other fixes a lot easier as well, such as putting punctuation marks on the wrong side of the quotation mark. I made the default body text handle indentation and paragraph spacing instead. Another problem is that all the copying and pasting ends up with broken quotation marks. You can select the entire document, go up to tools/autocorrect, and have it run autocorrect immediately on that block of text, implementing stuff like curly quotation marks immediately. You'll still need to fix a bunch, but writingtool catches that. From there, you have a couple of different options. Either, you can export directly as a docx or doc or ODT file, or you can export as PDF if you want pixel precise control over each page. Honestly, each file format is useful for different things here; PDF for print, mobi for many ebook stores. You can also save in mobi v3 and mobi v2, some stores actually want the older version for some reason. However, libreoffice's mobi export tool isn't perfect, and can create imperfections that cause importers to complain, that's where Sigil comes in. It's a FOSS mobi editor I used to resolve errors the importer had. In my case, the libreoffice exporter added an extra title to each section, and there was an improper direction element in the css file. For the title, I took the photo with my camera (yeah yeah), then modified it with gimp. I cut each element out and made each a layer, allowing me to apply effects to make the snow colder and reduce the detail there's a filter to focus on one point and progressively blur more as you get further from that point. Then I made the blood more saturated, and generally left the plane alone. Next, I used LibreOffice draw. I set the canvas size to the required size for the book, then put my image down at the same size as the canvas, and finally put the text elements down. I was able to use draw to fiddle with kerning and the like to lay things out exactly as I wanted, and I'm pretty happy with the outcome. One more piece of advice outside the FOSS ecosystem: Amazon will offer you access to things like Kindle unlimited if you choose to hitch your wagon entirely to their ecosystem. Everyone is on Amazon. It's convenient to buy and sell, and their print on demand looks great. If you're an indie author, you should really consider diversifying. For my first book, I never earned a penny on Kindle unlimited anyway, and that locked me out of other stores. This time I chose not to. Choosing not to gives you a chance to be on big stores like apple and Google, book stores like chapters and barnes and noble, and as a work chasing just a few sales, being a bigger fish in a smaller pond can mean more visibility since you're one of fewer titles on the ecosystem. FOSS Tools used Next cloud Libreoffice writer WritingTool libreoffice plugin Notepad++ Gimp Sigil npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Foolish Marxists have been tricked for centuries by a mistake Marx made. You see, in the moment Marx wrote, he mistook the decline of the aristocracy for its disappearance, replaced by the new business owner class. In reality, one need only look at what share of gdp is government to realize that's totally wrong. Business may punch above its class but it's a small fry in the postmodern bureaucratic world. Like Imperial China before it, it's been subordinated and minimized by the state. The most recent reliable global estimate of the total combined net worth of all the world’s billionaires comes from Forbes’ 2025 Billionaires List. According to that, there are 3,028 billionaires worldwide, whose collective net worth adds up to $16.1 trillion. Imagine that -- if the United States were to seize every billionaire's entire assets without those assets magically becoming worthless, it would only pay for the federal budget for 2 years, or half the current national debt. The Leviathan is the devourer of the world, and it will not stop at your enemies. Our ancient myths warned us of that, but we burned all the books when we proclaimed a sea monster couldn't literally eat the world. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Honestly, using base 10 for everything is actually super recent in historical terms. For a lot of things throughout history going back the babylonians, things were base 60, the babylonians were base 24, and a lot of stuff in English history is based around these as well, which is why you'd have "sixpence" -- their entire money system was base 240 or something nuts like that. So the idea that other cultures would set up their number naming conventions on another base than 10 then look strange because of it isn't so insane. We use base 60 more in our lives than you think -- 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours (which is divisible by 60) in a day, 360 degrees in a circle. If you think about it, it makes some sense -- in a world before calculators, having a base that can be divided in many ways without getting into long division would be quite efficient, even if it doesn't match our number of fingers (or the number system we're using) npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Windows 2000 was the last cohesive version of windows. Windows XP was half XP, half 2000 (and all the good parts were 2000). Windows 7 is half 2000, half XP, half Vista, Windows 8 was half 2000, half 7, half vista, half 8. And the best parts of windows 11 are still just Windows 2000. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I'd like to get a gun, but in the same way I'd like to get a motorcycle license, and I haven't gotten that done yet either. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero Little known fact: CANOLA oil didn't exist not that long ago. CANOLA (Derived from Canada Oil) is a form of rapeseed that is low in a certain acid that was engineered to get rid of the off taste so it could be used as a foodstuff. Canola was only invented in the early 1970s, so prior to that it was not widely used as a foodstuff. It was attempted to put rapeseed on the market as a food ingredient in the late 1950s, but in its form at the time it was fairly unpalatable. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I was listening to a video about the new Star Wars stuff that came out, and it brought back up something I keep on tripping over every time the discussions come up: Blazing Saddles. Blazing Saddles is a comedy Movie produced by Mel Brooks in 1974. The main character is a black man in 1874 who is working on the railroad. He gets himself in trouble, and eventually finds himself the sheriff of a town who hates him because he's black. He goes through a typical western plot of the scheming senator trying to destroy the town to make himself rich, but the twist is that part of the way he was going to do that was by making a black guy the sheriff. Instead, the new sheriff comes up with a plan to save the town by building a fake town nearby and slowing down the bandits by building a toll booth. The fake town is booby-trapped with explosives. The rest of the movie descends into a fourth wall breaking gong show. All throughout, the movie constantly made jokes dragging the racism of 1874 into the limelight as an object of ridicule. I saw it for the first time a few years ago, and it was absolutely hilarious. It was massively successful at the box office, making 119 million dollars on a 2.6 million dollar budget. What does Blazing Saddles have to do with the new Star Wars? Two things: First, the movie was as I understand it pretty cutting edge for the day, but it was a decade where many cutting edge movies were being put out. It had a black lead, it directly addressed racism as a core plot point, and as I recall it had more n-bombs than the freeside of the fediverse. Second, 1974 was (sorry, my Gen-X mutuals) 50 years ago. A child born the day that movie came out (sorry! sorry!) are starting to look at retirement, and anyone who saw it in theatres is likely already well past retirement age (sorry Boomers!). The key point here is that it's a movie that's been around for a long time. Really, there are things we can criticize the boomers as a bloc for, but it's historical revisionism to look at this movie and say "they didn't have black people in movies, they didn't discuss racism, and if they had black people in those movies white people wouldn't watch them" -- obviously all of that is wrong. Star Wars was released in 1977, and it did a lot of things too -- Everyone knows Princess Leia was one of the early girlboss characters, but besides that the assault on the death star had a lady named Mon Mothra in charge, and in the movie it wasn't a big deal, everyone was focused on the mission. The Empire Strikes back introduced a black character, Lando Calrissian (If I get the Star Wars names wrong here, I'm not even sorry) who was the black leader of an entire city and a really cool character to boot. Everyone remembers Lando. In Return of the Jedi in 1983, it explicitly reveals Leia was Luke's sister and also strong in the Force, so if Luke fails, she would be the galaxy's last hope, not directly showing a female jedi because that's not what the story was about, but making it clear girls could be jedis. The Prequel trilogy introduced Motherfuckin Samuel L. Jackson playing a Motherfuckin black motherfuckin jedi. Everyone was made of planks of wood in that movie, but apparently other media helped flesh out his character as incredibly interesting. I'm enumerating all these things to show that Star Wars already hit all these notes before many of the actresses rambling on about diversity were even born. They're acting like they're doing something really amazing that will change the world, but the world already changed, and it was the Baby Boomers that changed it. These people are walking into the middle of Washington DC and pretending they founded America. In short, it's literally not progress. Considering how poorly done these diversity roles are done and how poorly the media is taken because they focus first on pretending to be groundbreaking and then maybe sometime after with making something people actually want to see, it's worse than nothing because we already have had competent people make good works people look back on fondly. When a bad piece of media carries your message, it hurts the cause as much as a good piece of media carrying your message helps your cause. The marketing juggernaut has taken stuff that just kind of "Was" and changed it into a bullet point for the marketing blurb. "Star wars 4: we no longer murder women and minorities, and we're also no asbestos free!" I also feel like it lets people who aren't nearly as competent as their parents generation pretend they're doing something important when in reality they're just failing to live up to the standards of those who came before. "Well even if our movie sucks you need to watch it because we have black people!" -- Nobody cares. If you take Star Wars as a whole continuity, there isn't really any sort of real minority that isn't somehow represented. What they're doing isn't important, which is a deathblow because it also isn't competently produced or entertaining. Some might call the problem tokenism, I think that's wrong -- the problem isn't necessarily tokenism, it's worse: With tokenism, you include a black character to meet a quota. That can mean the black character is a token addition but otherwise inoffensive (and in fact can end up as a great character in their own right under a good writer). This is an active, religious thespiannic diversity. It's shouting from the streetcorner so everyone can see you being ever so pious. And as part of the performative aspect it stops being inoffensive and starts actively trying to be offensive. You see it in the interviews around the modern movies -- nobody's seen the movie yet, but they're railing against fans who hate the movie, especially "STRAIGHT WHITE MEN" because they hope that muckraking will cause controversy and attacking the core demographic of the film was a good way of doing that. Thankfully, people are getting wise to the grift, and so instead of getting outraged when these people say stupid things, they just ignore them, and now that the money is running out we're seeing the trickling of a sea change. It goes beyond merely performative, and into the thespiannic -- like a stage actor screaming their lines so everyone in the back row can hear. "Oh, this movie [that was just announced and nobody knows about yet] there's so many people attacking me, I got death threats!" uh huh? On the Internet, even? Sounds scary. And they were just lurking, waiting to jump on you, they didn't even wait for the film to be announced! Horrifying. If you're actually breaking barriers, you don't get full backing of the Hollywood hype machine. The suits aren't going to want to support you because you're trying something new and dangerous. In that sense, Gina Carano's actions are more cutting edge than any of the management approved controversy being drummed up, and they fired her and blacklisted her. This concept of "Safe edgy" is interesting to think about, but it isn't new. TV in the 90s was filled with TV shows or advertisements pretending they were pushing the edge when in reality they were doing exactly what the execs wanted them to be doing. Once you know what you're looking at (Don't you DARE spell "Extreme" with an E at the beginning because we're XTREME here! "No way!" WAAAAAYYYY!) the verisimilitude (appearance of being real) breaks down and you realize you're looking at a square pretending to be edgy and cool. And to be clear on something, there was a lot of fake edgy back then, but there was also a lot of real edgy and those guys were constantly one quip from having their show canceled by the networks. A lot of them didn't make it, but they left behind great works. The veneer of fake edgy hid milquetoast products back in the day, and often you'd get your XTREME LEMONADE and find that it was competent lemonade, not great but not horrible, just boring. I think part of the problem today is that fake edgy often is a mask over a mask; You're obviously being fake and so under that mask is something, but the boring underneath the fake edgy mask is the actual mask over what is often the absolutely horrible people inhabiting Hollywood and other media industries. But we found that in the following decades that a lot of our heroes in Media were terrible. You'd have some actress up on the big stage and she would make a point to heartfeltedly thank Harvey Weinstein who that actress probably needed to do something unspeakable to in order to get the part, right before they paid lip service to whatever social cause is trendy this week. We didn't know, but they did and they were complicit. And anyone who thinks that that was an isolated incident and that everything is fine now is in denial. For all the "we just love women and minorities!", it's a paper thin facade intended to cover up the window through which you can see Jeffrey Epsteins private island. I know, that's a lot to think about from just a bunch of idiotic hollywood actors pretending they're saving the world by selling you a shitty movie, but it isn't like I'm interested in the movies themselves anymore. npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero I mean, the party that wants to defund the police seems to love the police when it's the police arresting their political enemies, so they don't seem to know exactly what they want... npub1z6s842evxljv9upzs0y0468xaq8jzxqd0cp9487ny92l5ezmgtms86lj4z sj_zero The great financial crisis opened my eyes to the world of economics. It has been an interesting journey. Of course, just because I've walked it a long time doesn't mean my destination is the correct one. Without a correct map or proper road signs one may never reach the correct destination, and there seem to be a lot of fake maps out there. I've followed the ones that seem the most likely to get there. One of the risks econometrics and trying to centrally control economies (and it applies to economies but it's a common management problem in general) is that controlling to a certain number means that the number eventually stops being indicative of anything other than the degree to which it is controlled. Inflation is higher than the government pretends, which changes everything. One example of this is housing which has become a dominant part of most people's budgets. Another example is food -- someone compared the cost of fast food in 2024 to fast food in 2019, and it's many multiples higher in cost. Those two things alone make up a large portion of people's budgets so changes to those prices represent mass inflation to people. If we measured inflation the same way we did in 1990, first of all inflation measurements have been at least double what they have been, and second of all that increased inflation totally changes the story of "the greatest economic expansion on record". Instead it tells a story of 2008s financial crisis never ending. I've already done some research on inflation numbers where I look at a wide number of recurring costs and compare it to the alleged 2% rate of inflation: https://lotide.fbxl.net/posts/32322 It isn't an anecdote when you can look up data from 20 years ago and see that prices for the same thing have gone up on product category after product category. At that point if you're looking at the prices, it isn't an anecdote anymore. It's based on several actual data points. You could argue my methodology is poor, but ultimately it does represent real data and not anecdotes. Now if you want to ask me how to measure inflation, I think that's a good start -- look at a basket of goods and the prices people pay for those goods, especially as a proportion of an average family's budget that thing is. Now you might go "Obviously that's what they do", but that's not true. In the early 2000s in particular, they added things like hedonic adjustment where you can say "chicken 20 years ago cost much less than today but it's better chicken so even though you're paying more we're going to say you're paying less". Or substitution, where steak went up but you moved to chicken because you can't afford steak so there's no inflation, and then you moved to organ meats because you can't afford chicken so there's no inflation. In addition, there are situations such as "owner equivalent rent" which asks homeowners how much they think they'd have to pay to rent a home equivalent to the one they own. It's proven that this value is consistently lower than actual rent people pay and so it helps reduce inflation. Shadowstats proposed using the same inflation calculations used in the 1970s before the calculations were revised to show lower values, so there's an example of data people could use. As the shadowstats shows, if we had continued using that number then inflation would be considered consistently higher than it does under the current methodology. Given that I provided that link, it's disingenuous to suggest I'm suggesting metrics can't possibly be taken. When I say "They change the inflation number so inflation stays down", it should be obvious I'm not referring to the actual experienced inflation. I'm referring to the measured numbers being lower than are actually reflected in what people actually buy. It's part of the core problem of measurement and business control, that you can have a value that's important and measured and controlled, people will find ways to make sure the number looks better, even at the cost of not actually improving the actual metric. This isn't limited to economics, it's something management schools such as the Harvard Business School in their Harvard Business Review magazine have written about at length, because good managers (and arguably government consists of managers) need to be cognizant of the effects that measurement and control can have on values separate from the reality we're trying to measure and control. Economics is the study of incentives, and the incentives are powerful for government to fudge the numbers with respect to inflation. If the government measures inflation low, then they can claim a chunk of prices going up as economic growth. It can claim a chunk of the debt it runs up is just keeping pace with inflation. It gives the central bank an excuse not to fight inflation, since fighting inflation is a really painful thing. None of those incentives represent an omnipotent or impotent organization, but one made up of humans who prefer to do the thing that's incentivized for them. When everyone has the incentive to do the wrong thing, it's likely everyone will go along with doing the wrong thing. If you'd like an example, when Ronald Reagan was president, the national debt was about 1T dollars. Since then, every president since has roughly doubled the national debt. Reagan more than doubled the debt (according to FRED, the debt went from about 1T to about 3T), and since then every president has taken on some form of his "spend more money cut more taxes" regime, and the democrats and republicans have been in the presidency roughly the same amount of time, and they've often been in congress about half the time, and it doesn't really matter, whoever is president, whoever is in congress, whoever is in the senate, the debt has about doubled since the very late 1970s. (there was a brief reprieve during Clinton's presidency, but it's highly arguable that one of the reasons they could do that was the unprecedented dot com bubble and surrounding economic activity) It's obvious that this will lead to problems down the road, but the incentives are such that it's very difficult to get elected on a platform of raising taxes and cutting spending. It's one of the dangers of democracy Plato warned about. Of course, that example also shows some of the strong incentives for keeping the inflation number low. If inflation can be said to be low, then central bank interest rates can be kept low, and that'll help keep overall debt costs low by ensuring there's lots of money in the monetary system to buy that debt, which will help keep debt service costs low, which means borrowing is easier to justify since the cost of borrowing is low. We're seeing that right now, where in spite of only a relatively small increase in nominal debt, the debt service costs have doubled, and they're on track to increase considerably more. In addition, if inflation is reported as low, then government costs that are indexed with inflation can be kept lower. For example, social security is indexed to inflation, but despite that fact nearly half of baby boomers are considering re-entering the workforce because the cost of living is in fact rising faster than official inflation values. In addition, the government sells inflation indexed bonds, and as much as inflation can be downplayed, every basis point is money in the government's pocket. If inflation is reported as low, then that also changes the econometrics elected officials can run on, and it changes the required strategy moving forward. If inflation has been 2% from the end of the GFC around 2009 to the beginning of the pandemic in Q1 2024, then it was the longest period of economic expansion in history. If inflation was 6% or more, then it was the longest economic decline on record. If inflation is low, then it justifies continuing availability of debt which feels really good. If inflation is getting higher, then the availability of debt must be restricted which under conventional macroeconomic theory will cause a reduction in economic activity. Creation of too much money can harm the economy in two ways besides one I've directly discussed. First, in a previous post I pointed out that most recessions over the past 200 years have been situations where there's too much money, a thing is slightly profitable and so everyone borrows money to invest in it, it turns out to not be astronomically profitable meaning everything is savagely overvalued causing all the money invested in it to effectively disappear, leading to banks failing due to losing the money they lent to customers who invested in the thing. This means that too much money can cause a period of high growth, but it will lead to a period of decline. One of the most famous of these is the 1929 great depression, which was caused in part by the additional money in the system caused by the 1913 creation of the federal reserve bank which led banks to believe they were immune to bank runs, and the profitable thing was farming, combined with a period of improved rainfall in the south which made people believe they could just keep building farms and the rains would come. This led to the period known as the roaring 20s, when everyone was getting rich, but soon the climate changed back to normal and many of those farms turned to dry dust wracked with sand storms in a massive environmental cataclysm called the "dust bowl". When this happened, all those banks were suddenly on the line for massive amounts of money and failed, which was one of the reasons for the massive economic collapse. Second, a period of increasing inflation eventually stops resulting in additional economic growth, in the same way that someone full of cocaine eventually grows insensitive to the drug and mellows out at the same dose. This leads to stagflation, a situation of high inflation but low or negative economic growth. Most textbooks will simply say "this is a difficult situation to escape from". The 1970s was an example of stagflation due to a combination of monetary policy and growing government spending, combined with a massive economic shock from a huge rise in oil prices. The solution at the time ended up being in part central bank interest rate hikes that make the past few years look like nothing -- mortgages whose interest rates looked like credit cards are an example of the effects on general debt. This was hard for a lot of people, and a lot of people lost their homes, their cars, and more. Again, none of these incentives require the government to be omnipotent or impotent, they're just incentives that exist and will promote certain behaviors generally within government. The issues with econometrics have been well understood in other contexts as well. For example, the famines in both Mao's China and the Soviet Union were both caused by perverse incentives surrounding reported data. In both cases, the people in charge were incentivized to make their numbers look good regardless of whether they actually were good or not, and then the leaders looked better than they actually were in the short term at the expense of the people and decisions were made that had negative consequences because they were based on bad data. That case was a lot more direct, but human beings react to incentives, and it doesn't need to be "Mao will have you shot" to modify people's behavior significantly, and it doesn't need people to be actively trying to lie or be malicious to affect reporting or design of econometrics to the detriment of understanding the real world data.