h4890

Public Key

npub1ac6j9swfj7s066zqpnq8vautzlhh2j5mf2pkqn5cya9zekpjd99srj7tf7

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqswudfzc8ye0g8adpqqesrkw7930mm4f2d54qmqf6vzwj3vmqexjjcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsug0f78

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1ac6j9swfj7s066zqpnq8vautzlhh2j5mf2pkqn5cya9zekpjd99srj7tf7

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-26 21:49:37 UTC

- reply

How do you integrate it with your linux desktop/laptop (if at all)?

2026-03-26 12:21:36 UTC

- reply

Based on my research, it seems the two leading linux phones at the moment are Fairphone 5 with ubuntu touch, and the Jolla.
Drop the surveillance tech, and enjoy a step towards more freedom!

2026-03-26 09:47:41 UTC

- reply

Missed that completely. Is there some kind of Butlerian jihad going on here?
The only thing I remember that was fun, was some guy who was angry with vim because they accepted non-human (but human approved, I assume) code into the code base, and wanted to fork vim due to that reason.
It was really very silly.

2026-03-25 18:48:23 UTC

Dear all, what is the best current option for a linux phone?
The idea of being able to take my scripts and linux software with me appeals to me. Also the fact that it is not android, so that no andoird apps work, is also a strong positive!
My research so far indicates that the only painless option is Fairphone 5 with ubuntu touch.
The other ones I've found either do not have full ubuntu touch support, or, they run some kind of home baked linux/android mix, and I think ubuntu touch might have more force behind it than the various smaller, home baked solutions that exist.
Any recommendations highly appreciated!

2026-03-25 16:26:13 UTC

- reply

It's sad, but not unexpected. We must always keep in mind that linux is no longer a project run by hobbyists for hobbyists. Look at the board, and you will quickly see that the linux foundation is now run by corporations, and therefore, linux will be bent to the will of corporations.
Fortunately, the source is free, and devuan exists. Should things become really dark, there is also the BSD:s side of the universe.

2026-03-23 17:52:45 UTC

- reply

True. When it comes to the political game, I always thought that the blocking was hyperbole. I find it very hard to believe that members of one party do not read, listen or accidentally see what the other party wants, what they do and do not do. If they did, how could they even complain about the party? In order to complain about their ideas, they have to know what they are. ;)
But yes... dialogue and slowness to block is important! I also think that another thing is that perhaps after having "blocked" for some time, it might pay off to open the lines of communication a bit to see if there has been a change of opinion on the other side.

2026-03-23 13:45:18 UTC

- reply

There is another side of that coin. In some countries, the situation often occurs where a coalition of parties says that they won't talk or cooperate another party (nationalist parties most often).
The critique from the right is that this is anti-democratic.
I, as someone on the economic right, but who is not against nationalist (as long as it is "healthy") find this objection questionable.
After all, what allows the parties to do that is the collective nr of votes they got in the election. Democracy does not mean that everyone should be forced to cooperate or talk. if I find my political opponent to be a mad man, I do not have an obligation to extend my arms or ears.
So I believe that the choice to "block" or not cooperate is fully in line with democracy, even though I do admit that it can be frustrating for the people in the blocked party.

2026-03-23 13:35:41 UTC

- reply

Haha... amen! When given the choice of if the homo economicus (Trump actually renamed it to the straighto economicus btw) or the world has to go, academic economists often sacrifice the world in favour of an abstraction that is easier to study.
I once attended a lecture by one of norways billionaires (don't remember the name) and he was asked by someone in the audience about critique he received from academia about how his investment decisions where not based on sound economics.
His response was that "I know one thing for sure. The academics are still academics and earn nothing, while I'm a billionaire. That's probably how much I care about their theoretical models".

2026-03-23 11:51:10 UTC

- reply

Ahh... excellent list! Look at Denmark.. 2% and 12 parties in the parliament, now we're talking!
Very selectively...
Serbia, 3% and 10 parties. Spain, 3%, 10 parties. Sweden 4%, 8. Switzerland, no limit, 10. Netherlands, 0.667%, 15.
Clearly there is a correlation between limit and parties, but what is interesting is that the nr of parties seem to hover between 10-15 or so, regardless of limit.
What does that tell us about the size of the country, and the number of parties being able to rally people?
Is 10-15 parties what a small country is able to produce given the attention of the population, and the space available in the media?
Could it be that past that, the issues become so technical and niche, that no one is able to muster any energy?

2026-03-23 11:36:04 UTC

- reply

Upon further thought... the only way out I see is either to look at unchangeable characteristics of human nature, or rather... nature. That would be one way to avoid the trap, if _we_ are trapped by the formula due to our human nature.
Another way would be to zoom out to the absolutely highest level, such as global performance of stocks, over 100 years or so, which is answered by 6%-7%. This is still slightly susceotible to the problem, but I think it _is_ coupled with the fixed psychology of most human beings, that are notoriously bad at long term thinking.
Therefore it does actually make sense to invest for the long term, as long as you do not expect more than 7%, but we wont be talking any quick gains, and it does take psychological fortitude, which is why most people will ignore the advice. It is simply... "boring".

2026-03-23 11:30:33 UTC

- reply

Based on a few seconds thinking, I think that this is very difficult. The only brief idea I can come up with is to trace historical bubbles based on mentions of a key term (say AI) in the media, and see how that term is used more and more to try and determine the start of the bubble. The end is easy enough to define.
Based on that, we would then have imperfect data on the rise and pop of bubbles.
But as we all know, past performance is no guarantee of future performance, so at most, it would be able to vaguely answer the question if 5-10 years is the span of bubbles.
But should the theory then manage to come up with strong correlations in the future, that can be acted upon, as per our previous (long time ago) discussion, its increased use will dilute the theory, since it will push investors to constantly +1 the theory to stay ahead of the crowd.
So the cruel paradox of market research is that as soon as it gives results, it gets used, and from its use, its usability will drop, until it falls out of favour, and then it might become useful again.
That in turn raises the meta-question of how long time it takes for a stockmarket theory to go from unknown, to fall out of favour, and from there ,to start to work again. ;)
And then the meta-meta perspective comes into play. ;)

2026-03-22 11:14:43 UTC

- reply

Interesting. The advantage with that is more parties, which increases the likelihood of someone like me actually finding a party that represents them. 2.5%? Do you know of any countries that have 2.5% in practice, and how many parties do they have in the parliament?

2026-03-22 11:13:06 UTC

- reply

I'd say that in the most extreme cases, maybe 5-10 years?

2026-03-21 11:28:06 UTC

- reply

Yes... exactly. It is not a cost, it is called democracy.
What would your ideal minimum limit be for a party, in terms of % of votes, before you would admit them to the parliament?
In sweden it is 4% and I think that is too high. I'd like to see something between 1 and 2 %.

2026-03-21 11:26:50 UTC

- reply

Well, the things is, if you predict outside the markets, and have a perfect track record, utilizing that information makes it part of the market. So all methods which are used to inform acting on the market, are part of the markets prediction mechanism.
Only methods that do not act on the market can be said to be an alternative system, but if they are never acted upon, (through markets) they would be kind of useless.
Also, the markets are correct long term. The shorter the short term, the more imprecise the markets become, as we currently see in the stock markets with the Iran war.

2026-03-20 14:26:11 UTC

- reply

How would you reform democracy, in an ideal world, to promote more parties, and more turnover of politicians and parties in the parliament? Is there any way this could be done, and has it been done somewhere?

2026-03-20 14:25:26 UTC

- reply

Alas, we have no better method of predicting future prices and to coordinate supply and demand than the markets, so they are the best we can do in the long term.
As for climate hysteria, it is non-scientific. It is simply impossible to disprove it, nor prove it, since we do not have a duplicate planet.
That is also why politicians love it. Just like god, it can be used to justify anything, and no proof can ever be offered for or against.

2026-03-20 09:22:01 UTC

- reply

No one, and that is as it should be. They became too content, too comfortable with power. It's the same with the swedish socialist party who ran the country for 50-60 years. they used to have above 50%, these days they are down to 35.
In a vibrant and living democracy, it is important that old parties fade, and that young and energetic ones take their place.

2026-03-20 09:07:57 UTC

- reply

It is just the logic of the market. China needs energy to expand, and they use what ever they can find. Coal is growing in china for instance.
Meanwhile, they use climate hysteria to make sure the EU handcuffs itself into irrelevance.
But it seems to me that climate hysteria is slowly fading in favour of reality, which teaches us that we need energy unless we want to revert to a medieval standard of living.
Hopefully we will all laugh at climate hysteria in 10 years time, realizing it wasnt anything else but a mental illness.

2026-03-19 22:21:15 UTC

- reply

Isn't there a nigerian court jester in the royal household?

2026-03-19 15:27:06 UTC

- reply

A more approriate answer would be either...
1. Fuck you.
or
2. I don't see you contributing, but you want to pay for my order and round up, be my guest.
I really hate when companies try to be woke and charity oriented. It's so fake it's disgusting.

2026-03-18 18:18:09 UTC

- reply

This is certainly one factor, especially today. They can become enormously complex and that is why a single organization often fails at predicting all the cascading effects.

2026-03-18 08:43:32 UTC

- reply

Supply chains are interesting things. Usually I sit aloof in my IT-tower, but yesterday I was trying to sell a solution to a steel manufacturer. They said no, since their customer are out of gas. Without gas, they cannot use the steel, so the steel remains unbought on the shelves and everything is suspended, so no IT-systems aregoing to be purchased until the gas starts flowing.

2026-03-18 08:41:11 UTC

- reply

I think it is a liberation war. Trump has always been very passionate about the iranian people, and saw the chance to strike and liberate them.

2026-03-16 16:03:34 UTC

- reply

Speaking of death count! I manifested an iranian today, and took the chance to ask about the situation in iran.
This is of course subjective and based on one person, but according to his relatives, the government killed 40k people in 2 days during the protests.
So far, Trumps war of liberation has killed, according to him 2k people and among the 2k a lot of government representatives.
So he was very happy about Trump and was hoping sincerely that Trump will bomb the government to the ground and kill all the ones responsible.
So that was one personal opinion from someone with skin in the game.

2026-03-16 12:51:18 UTC

- reply

Brilliant!

2026-03-16 10:03:25 UTC

- reply

This is true. It will be very interesting to follow how this conflict will develop. Because _if_ the subjective death count starts to favour the current regime, that is, if Trump & Co start to kill too many civilians, it can actually help the dictators. But I think we are still many deaths away from that point due to the cruelty of the iranian regime.
It is also funny how Trump is asking Nato to help him. I would respond that "no thank you, we are too busy with Ukraine which you left for us, to have time with more wars at the moment, but once Ukraine has won, we'll happily lend you a hand".

2026-03-16 10:00:57 UTC

- reply

You are a very difficult person to troll with your nuanced views! ;)
Leaving the question of guilt aside, I do agree fully with the position that cultural and historic events colour the relations between nations and people, and that it is beneficial to take that into account when negotiating and doing business.

2026-03-15 10:56:10 UTC

Interesting. Russia has been turning off the mobile internet for the past weeks in Moscow. Are they getting nervous about people organizing resistance to the war?

2026-03-15 10:39:54 UTC

- reply

Yes, the cost is corpses. Given the choice of dead iranian dictators and living iranian women, I'd prefer living iranian women. Would you?
Or would you condemn them to slavery over the "cost" of corpses of iranian dictators?

2026-03-15 10:39:04 UTC

- reply

As you know I do not buy into the concept of historical guilt, because it leads to a reductio ad absurdum where everyone is guilty of everything if we go back 500, 1000, 1500 years and on and on. I think this concept, historical guilt, is an enormous success of the woke left, but I think it is starting to show it's absurdum and weaken. Fortunately.

2026-03-14 11:18:32 UTC

- reply

I think the key to a successful end to the special military operation (pun intended!) is that the US allies itself closely with the rest of arabia, and that they then in a synchronized fashion lob in bombs from all surrounding countries.
On the ground, they need to carve out a part of the country for the kurds, and the rest for a western oriented iranian state, for the iranian people.
I think with this 1-2, massive bombing, and then cleaning up on the ground by kurds and iranians, it should be over in a couple of months.

2026-03-14 11:15:26 UTC

- reply

Note that Iran started it by threatening to eradicate all jews, and by killing, maiming and imprisoning 100s of thousands of their own people, including many women.
Only Trump stands up for them, the left just watches and remains silent. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Trump has not attacked a single country that behaves itself, with western values and that doesn't kill its own population.

2026-03-11 11:52:14 UTC

- reply

Excellent. The current iranian regime must be crushed, and power returned to the people.
Next step, delete the retarted religion of islam, replace with classic, western values, and we all will prosper.
There is a traditional saying.... where the white man rules, there is peace, where the white man is absent, chaos reigns.

2026-03-11 11:48:56 UTC

- reply

Yep, same in sweden. Deleting famous engineers and people who really contributed to society, and replacing them with woke cultural personalities no one cares about.

2026-02-23 15:40:12 UTC

- reply

This is the way! I would hate to live in india with people everywhere. I like the fact of not having people around.
But it is important to spread the message, so fewer immigrant scome to sweden, and we can hope that many immigrants leave because sweden is too boring.
That wold make sweden a better place. ✝️ 🇮🇱 🇺🇸

2026-02-23 11:20:37 UTC

- reply

It is very fascinating to see how the UK is following the development of sweden, step by step. In sweden, the sweden democrats started to get into power, and then there was a schism, that created the alternative for sweden party.
If history is a guide, restore will sit at a few % which will consist of the most aggressive nationalists.
Reform will soften their approach, over time, and become an established mainstream party, with a skepticism against immigration.

2026-02-18 08:35:08 UTC

- reply

If we're to apply the swedish pattern, and if it holds true for GB, the immigrants in reform, like in the swedish nationalist party, are some of the more hardworking immigrants, who realize that they have the most to lose by letting in more of them, since every crazy immigrant that arrives, pulls the orderly ones down by association.
I've met a few immigrants who are members of the swedish nationalist party, and generally they are very nice people who really want to integrate fully into swedish society.
They are also the ones who are most violently against islam, since they have seen with their own eyes how tihs medieval and destructive religion hasdestroyed their home countries.

2026-02-17 16:52:33 UTC

- reply

She was/is a wise woman!

2026-02-17 15:33:43 UTC

- reply

Tut, tut... rare earth minerals and diamonds! 😎

2026-02-17 15:33:07 UTC

- reply

Well, yours isn't bad advice per se, only when taken to an extreme by an immature person with an immature expectation of the world.
Another classic I always give my students is that the world is not fair, and the best way to hurt yourself, is to walk around the world with the expectation that it is fair.

2026-02-17 15:31:39 UTC

- reply

The people! 👍🏿

2026-02-17 11:40:15 UTC

- reply

Excellent! We do not want terrorist propaganda on those platforms. Go team yahve! 🇮🇱 🇺🇸 ✝️

2026-02-17 11:36:15 UTC

- reply

I think this is dangerous advice. Life and work does not consist of only fun moments, doing only things that we like. It consists of hard things, and doing things we do not like. By telling immature people that they should focus on what they like, the risk is that they go out in life with the expectation of only doing something fun, and then things turn out to be not so much fun.
I find it much better to be realistic and balanced and teach my students that life is not fun, and work is called work for a reason.
After all, there is only so muc economic space for gender scientists, artists, influencers and the like. If you're not at the top, then your life will be worse off, than the person who takes a moderate approach and educates himself in a sector that actually does pay somewhat well, and where there is a demand.

2026-02-17 09:42:24 UTC

- reply

To me, it always seemed the best strategy for the young is to look at the areas that the government does _not_ recommend one educate oneself in. Then go for those areas. After 3-5 years, there will be a huge shortage, and salaries will rise.
The trap is to educate yourself based on what the government thinks is needed. This is almost always wrong.
I guess the only exception to this rule is where the profession itself has cornered the market such as lawyers and doctors. Those two managed to hang on to the best job protection techniques from the middle ages, with shortage and high cost as a result.

2026-02-17 09:34:53 UTC

- reply

They should include coffee in the price while you wait.

2026-02-14 12:00:05 UTC

- reply

Very interesting. I think team UBI would do themselves a big favour by stop talking about it as UBI, and approaching it step by step in the form of smaller, localized, projects by the state tu support certain groups and expand it over time.
It still won't work at scale, _but_, from a political and strategic point of view, I think they would be more successful than starting "top down".
I think that's how I would do it if I were to join "team left". ;)

2026-02-13 10:17:00 UTC

- reply

Hah! I'll believe it when I see it. My guess is that smart phones will be required, which means that hte solution, again, will be based on either US or Chinese (or both) technologies.
The closest thing to what we need that I have seen is the african m-pesa.
It works with dumbphones, and with the infrastructure available in rural africa, and would be _perfect_.
Sadly KYC/AML law probably makes any option, except US and/or Chinese technology based solutions impossible.
So I think the choice here will be, either digital sovereignty and independence, or AML/KYC. Both is not possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa

2026-02-13 10:12:57 UTC

- reply

Why do you think that we never see this discussed?
In the media, all I see are tiny, tiny, localized attempts, but never any discussion about how to implement "real" UBI.
Is it because it is impossible in practice, but a good dream to sell, or vision, for the people on the political left?

2026-02-13 07:51:32 UTC

- reply

Switzerland has had their own card payment system for a long time. A quick start would be to copy it, and then integrate it across countries. BIS is based in Switzerland, maybe they could help?

2026-02-12 11:42:01 UTC

- reply

If sweden serves as a guide, things will slowly, too slowly, improve, and you will reach a point where it becomes obvious that immigration doesn't work.
The revolting thing is that then all of a sudden, _everyone_ has said that all the time, and the past 10-15 years are suddenly forgotten.
The hypocritical politicians will adopt the new mindset in seconds as soon as they see benefit from doing thta, and then they _always_ thought so. It is sickening.

2026-02-12 10:01:52 UTC

- reply

But, another interesting question is... let's assume the UBI is 500 EUR per person, that means, that the government needs to rake in 8.5 billion x 500 eur = 4.24 trillion EUR, which is about 1/6:th of the entire GDP of the EU.
Do you seriously think this is viable? Oh, and note that the assumption here is _universal_ as in every human being. Otherwise we are retreating again to the case of UBI not being UBI, in which case it should be stopped being called UBI, and just be salled by some other name.
I also use 500 EUR here which is too low in many EU countries, and probably very generous in some third world countries. But having unequal UBI again, moves us away from the U in the UBI.

2026-02-12 09:57:02 UTC

- reply

I think the employees would be forced to increase their salaries to a significant amount above the UBI in order to attract people who would be willing to perform the work. That in turn, would lead to massive inflation, which in turn, would turn the UBI into something that won't cover the basics.
That in turn, leads to increasing the UBI, which causes the companies to have to increase their salaries, which again, results in massive cost increases for consumers, and on and on it goes, until the currency has lost all trust and collapses.

2026-02-12 09:39:23 UTC

- reply

That is very strange. In sweden, no one is forbidden to work. What happens though, is that since many immigrants get UBI, they don't want to work. After all, why would anyone want to take a crappy and difficult job, if you can get money anyway? That is juts basic human psychology, and another way in which the UBI idea fails miserably.

2026-02-11 16:19:23 UTC

- reply

I think the empirical evidence rather shows the opposite. It is enough to look at sweden integration fiasco, where immigrants can live on 15-20k GBP per month for year and years without lifting a finger.
This has become a complete catastrophy and makes them less inclined to integrate, more depressed, has made crime explode, and many more things.
If you want to see a large scale experiment in UBI, look no further than sweden immigration fiasco, where 100 of thousands have received UBI and are a net loss to society.
In fact, it was big mainstream news recently, where the government Swedish National Institute of Economic Research had looked at the past 40 or 50 years (I think) of immigration, and concluded that it was a net loss for swedens economy.
https://www.konj.se/publikationer/specialstudier/2025-06-04-redovisning-regeringsuppdrag-om-migrationens-nettoeffekter/ .

2026-02-11 09:21:37 UTC

- reply

Alas, no evidence here. All studies I've seen, are either looking at ridiculously short time frames, are based on the public sector witout any competition, or it is not universal.
Universal means, all, if we remove that, it's just giving government money to select groups, and we do that already, and it provably keeps people off the job market.
If it truly is universal, simple high school math will show that this is a financial impossibility, by multiplying the proposed amount with about 8.5 billion.
Add to that the enormous inflationary effects, and the enormous tax increases needed, and the amount will not be basic for long.
The soviet union tried this at scale, and failed hard, and it will naturally fail in the future as well if tried at scale.
I find it sad that historys and science lessons are always forgotten by the left.
But as the saying goes... the soviet union wasn't _real_ socialism, if we just do it right next time, then surely heaven on earth will be here. ;)

2026-02-11 09:13:46 UTC

- reply

It is good! Because it might lead to people choosing self-hosted open source alernatives instead of centralized corporate solutions with built in surveillance.

2026-02-07 22:03:56 UTC

- reply

Given the current turbulence I'd say that there are plenty of worse places than cash deposits.

2026-02-07 12:04:30 UTC

- reply

Please don't do. I was just curious if you have heard or seen anything, since the money surely must go "somewhere". Would not want you to spend time on something which I was jts mildly curious about.

2026-02-07 12:03:39 UTC

- reply

I disagree here. Yes, I might compete with my competitors, but I cooperate closely within my organization, and with my customers. After all, the competition does not consist in any activities where I actively block or "fight" the competition. We compete in providing the customer the best possible service or product.
So based on that, saying that the market promotes competition, is based on the wrong idea of competition. If you look at customer/client relationships you'll see they are based on close cooperation and non-zero sum interactions. The same goes for teams within the same company.
Let me add another scenario as well. Very often, I cooperate with business partners, and other companies to deliver solutions together.
So I do not think competition is the right word to describe whta goes on on the market.
Last, but not least, the market is provably not zero-sum, but generates increasing wealth. The proof is that despite being billions today, globally we've achieved unbelievable standards of living for everyone on the planet.
This shows that the markets are the only positive and wealth generating systems we have, and we have achieved this despite governments and politics, which is truly zero-sum, and does not have the ability to generate wealth.

2026-02-07 10:45:03 UTC

- reply

Based on what I hear from non-mainstream news sources, russia is doing fine. As long as there is no starvation on the streets, the regular russian couldn't care less about Putin, but is entirely focused on putting food on the table, and not getting caught dicussing politics.
Only if the regular russian starts to starve, might we see some dramatic changes. If not, as long as china continues to support russia, Ukraine will continue to be a kind of vietnam, or afghanistan sucking resources away for as long as Putin wants it.
On the other hand, people never thought the soviet union was going to collapse, until it did. So once things happen, they can happen surprisingly fast.

2026-02-07 10:39:24 UTC

- reply

Is there any type of investment in the UK that has seen inflows? Could it be that taxes have been increased, which makes capital go somewhere else?

2026-02-07 10:35:32 UTC

- reply

That is a great argument for letting the market run our societies and not zero-sum political combatants.

2026-02-04 09:16:13 UTC

- reply

Why is it absurd? I had no idea about him until the media started to shout his name from the roof tops. I think the first time I heard about him was after he commited suicide.

2026-02-04 09:15:08 UTC

- reply

I'm not so sure. An ageing population, and more supporting less, will be offset by a reduction in cost for the state for schools, childcare, and everything else relevant to the start of life and families. That can then be shifted towards the elderly.
Add to that, robots and AI, and the impact will be even less.
In addition to that, take into consideration the enormous waste in the public sector, and the ridiculous salaries of many (but not al) of our public "servants" and there's plenty of resources available.
The only reason poiticians are worrying about child births is that they want more power over more people, and ever expanding salaries.
This won't happen in that future. So it is nt about society it is about political job protection.

2026-02-04 09:11:07 UTC

- reply

This is not just the UK, the law in the western world, due to the overly socialist and pro-government legislation has become a joke. It is starting to collapse under its own weight and people no longer believe in it.
This way, the fall of civilization starts.

2026-02-03 09:04:45 UTC

- reply

That illustrates another error in this foolish idea. 214 divided up among the worlds population is about 25 dollars per person, which will change _nothing_.
However, moving 2% of productive capital to the capital destroying public sector, will cause a loss of jos and industry and spending, that will far outweigh the benefit of 25 dollars per person.
The desperate and debt loaded politician better think of some other way to get their money than extracting it from the billionaires, because despite their wealth, when spread around the world, it will do nothing.
But the best argument is of course that we cannot just look at how much individual tax our billionaires, our heroes, pay, we must add together the taxes of all their companies, what they purchase (VAT) and their employees, and _that_ is how much billionaires and their companies contribute, which is, far, far more than any of us most likely ever will.
Demanding more is juts greed, and should be (and will be) punished by billionaires leaving and starting fewer companies, which will hurt us all.

2026-02-03 08:57:31 UTC

- reply

What I don't understand is, with all those emails, with 100s if not 1000s of people all over the world, how did Epstein have time for anything else besides writing emails?

2026-02-01 11:58:26 UTC

- reply

But if they benefit in such a one sided way, how come the UK still allows it? What is the unique selling point of the channel islands for the UK?

2026-02-01 11:56:13 UTC

- reply

It's a very interesting universe to explore. Thank you very much for the link!
Reminds me a little bit of the world of my youth with phrack, 2600, and ascii/ansi art, delivered through BBS:s.
That also had a very nice community feeling to it!

2026-02-01 11:54:27 UTC

- reply

I agree and disagree with you. I _do_ agree, as a libertarian, that private government contracts funded by tax payers should not exist, and that any man who has become a billionaire that way, is not a billionaire but just an expert at manipulating the state for his benefit. This is also an argument for why the state should be small, and not be an actor on the markets to such an extent that it is today. You'll just end up with a small clique manipulating it and loads of political corruption.
What I do not agree with, is that billionaires who became billionaires on the private market is something we must worry about. They became billionaires by providing a serivce you and I freely buy from them, so they helped us, and should not be punished for it.
In terms of taxes, also note that you must consider the tax revenue resulting as a consequence of the entire empire they built. That includes jobs created, the income taxes on those jobs, money they spend in local markets, tariffs etc.
Once a billionaire you cannot compare taxes like you do with your neighbours. If you look at the taxes the billionaire pays directly, and indirectly, you will see that they actually pay 100s of millions in tax. Demanding they should pay more, while we do not, is juts pure greed. They pay more than enough.

2026-02-01 11:50:00 UTC

- reply

You are brutally honest with yourself and that deserves a lot of respect! I really like that aspect of our discussions, even though I am not as brutally honest myself. But one can always improve! ;)
What I think is important to keep in mind, based on the discussion so far in this thread, is that no law should ever be seen as eternal and absolute, and depending on the circumstances, it can be justified to break them. A too rigid stance towards "the law" at worst risks you becoming a useful idiot to authoritarian regimes.
This is also the wonderful subjective borderland of ethics vs law. When does your personal code of ethic demand that you break the law? That's a very interesting question to think about!
So how come you would theoretically be open to tax evasion as collective action and not as a set of uncoordinated individuals?

2026-02-01 11:46:14 UTC

- reply

This is the truth! It is, indeed, a subjective value judgment. For me, any state that takes in more than half of what someone earns, does not have legitimacy, but is a slave owner and not a state.
So for me, in order to talk about any kind of legitimacy, the total tax level must come down to below 50%.
After that... a new conversation starts, when it comes to how the tax level can be brought down to thte 5-10% range, at which point I think many (but not all) tax evaders wouldn't bother any longer. Probably myself included, even though the amount of evasion in my case is not bigger than 10-15% of the total income.
Based on those criteria, what do you think of the channel islands?

2026-01-31 12:10:58 UTC

- reply

Here I disagree. It is illegal if you are a die hard democract. If you are oriented towards libertarianism, then there is no a priori ground to acknowledge unjust laws. I, for instance, recognize no law from the government, since the government does not exist. It is, at the end of the day, just the maffia with the biggest guns, and just like the maffia extorts victims, so does the state.
So tax evasion, I'd argue is closer to self defense, than something illegal.
You can easily see this if you think about yourself living in russia or ww2 germany. Would you still think that evading taxes in russia would be illegal? Or would it be an act of freedom? Would you comply with ratting out jews in ww2 germany?
These examples are just different in degree, but not in kind.
My most important point is this... _if_ politicians steal from you, with the threat of violence, _but_ put this to such good use that you won't be able to find a better option on the market, then there would be no problem with tax evasion, since that would be irrational.
And that is why it is so important as a quality signal of western democracies. Do they do a bad job, tax evasion increases, do they do a good job, tax evasion decreases.
But since politicians lack the market mentality, they'd rather crack down on tax evasion with violence, which is the same as silencing the opposition with a punch in the face.
If they were smart, they would engage and try to find out _why_ the evaders do not think they get "value for money" and then they would adapt, and then society, and everyone, would actually benefit.
By not doing that, you just end up with the classic problem of modern western democracy which has just devolved into mob rule where a majority exploits a minority, and this, over time, leads to polarization, and possibly to authoritarianism as people slowly lose the faith in democracy.

2026-01-31 12:04:54 UTC

- reply

I haven't read it, but I'd suspect that they committed the falacy of looking at too short a time frame.
Capitalism doesn't work without inequality. Inequality is just a naturally function of our different skills and abilities, and must be allowed to exist, for capitalism to function.
If you artificially remove inequality, you'll get the soviet union and and that resulted in starvation and everyone getting it worse.
In order to show _why_ we need inequality, and why it is actually a good thing in the long term, I think Johan Norbergs The capitalist manifesto is an excellent book.

2026-01-31 10:50:02 UTC

- reply

Tax evasion is good. It forces politicians to do a better job, and to provide services that are so attractive, that people actually want to pay taxes.
It can also be used as a measurement of the incompetence and ineptitude of the public sector. The worse the quality becomes, the less prone people are to pay for the crap they get.

2026-01-31 10:43:50 UTC

- reply

Not necessarily. What if the bottom has all they need and all they want? With that thought experiment, it is clearly shown, that inequality, in itself, is not a problem at all.
Add to that, that my guess is that the bottom 50% has it much, much worse 100 years ago, than today, and we can see that this is not a static condition, but as long as we continue to allow capitalism and markets, the bottom 50% will get it better.

2026-01-31 10:38:52 UTC

- reply

Well, regardless, it does seem like a passion driven business, and that is always a good thing!

2026-01-30 23:58:17 UTC

- reply

What is this? Fascinating! I didn't think companies like this existed any longer. Are they profitable? And is there anything in their online shop that you would recommend?

2026-01-30 16:04:46 UTC

- reply

This is the way! 🍾

2026-01-30 16:04:24 UTC

- reply

I would also, in an attempt to view both sides of the argument, highlight a point which I think is not very often brought up.
Often in these discussions, the left wants to "force" companies to work less, which damages tax revenue and society, and the right wants to let companies work as much as they like.
However!
First, as you pointed out, there's the organic shift. The length of the work week is becoming a bargaining chip in salary negotiations with companies, just like fully remote work has become. Many people are willing to sacrifice some amount of monthly salary in order to work 3 or 4 days a week, or go fully remote.
The second point is that many people fear working less. Peopel will become bored, unhappy, etc.
The thing is, when we went from 7 to 6 day, there was much rejoicing. When we went from 6 to 5 days, again, there was much rejoicing and very little weeping.
Likewise, when we organically move from 5 to 4 I am certain, there will be much rejoicing.
What I do _not_ know, and what I am curious about, is if there's a happy minimum. Probably this depends on the person, the society at large, and the job.

2026-01-30 07:43:53 UTC

- reply

This is the truth! If people were to work effectively, yes, we would indeed see a 4 day work week, or even a 3 day one. I do not doubt this at all.
On the other hand, we are not made to work 100% effectively, so enforcing 4 days, will just reduce the effective time worked down to 2 or 2.5 days, and society will lose a lot of money that way.
I find it incomprehensible that politicians see the need to regulate how much someone wants to work at all. Surely, that must be one of the more idiotic trends in socialism today.

2026-01-30 07:40:26 UTC

- reply

I don't see it as ageism but as a natural consequence of the medium. TV is a visual medium, and as such, I want the people I see on TV to be pleasing to the eye. Naturally, older people will have to leave.
The positive spin here is that this directly counters age discrimination against the young!

2026-01-28 21:31:02 UTC

- reply

Be free, and buy your music. Don't be a slave to music as a service.
I play LPs. If I count the cost per hour I've played them, they are very cheap indeed!

2026-01-28 08:40:20 UTC

- reply

The dirty little secret is that the Europe will be just fine. WIth 450 million people, against russias 160 or so, and with an economy that is 15x larger, there is no way russia will ever be able to beat europe.
What would happen, if europe was serious, is that all western european nations, would send 35% of their armed forces to the eastern front, and that would be the end of russia.
Add to that, fighter jets and submarines that are some of the most advanced on the planet (thinking of Saab Jas Gripen, and the swedish submarine that sunk american boats during a Nato exercize some years ago) and russia has no chance.
The fact that our politicians, and population still hunker down with fear of Putin shows us how brilliant they are at psychological warfare.
But just as it was discovered that russia was far weaker when the iron curtain fell and the soviet union collapsed (they found fake planes to make russia look stronger for instance) we will again see how weak russia really is, ince it comes tumbling down again.
The tsars fell, the communists fell, and eventually Putin will also fall.

2026-01-28 08:36:14 UTC

- reply

Ahh... but note that surely the reason for them is to break free of the Tory shackles that bound them. With reform, they can utilize their full creative freedom to maximize the help of the UK people! I would not judge them so harshly!

2026-01-25 10:19:46 UTC

- reply

True, but not to any meaningful extent. The US can easily take over. But yes, it will cost more than Venezuela, and also, the problem I guess is that the arabians close by and israel, are maybe not so happy. Since iran cannot retaliate they will resort to bombing US bases in the surrounding countries, and the surrounding countries know that Trump will not lift many fingers to help them out once he has done his thing. They will be left with the cleanup operation.
That is why I think it is taking time. They are now trying to sort out which country will help the US, and who will pay for cleanup.

2026-01-25 10:17:31 UTC

- reply

Ahh... yes, I understand if the pool consists of second tier academics. Maybe the key here is to expand the pool. Then you'd have academics with some sense of job security and a regular salary, and the consulting pool who are not employees and have no job security. Then I think the pool of academics would not be so envious of the consulting pool, alternatively, they could work extra.

2026-01-25 10:13:20 UTC

- reply

Hmm... interesting. I wonder if the UK universities would consider hiring teachers, paid by the hour?
That way, they would get the teaching done, and then would have no cost for the rest of the year.

2026-01-25 10:11:35 UTC

- reply

Of course they are not informd consumers in the market sense of the word. It's the government, an actor on the market with a monopoly on violence and as such, likely to alter the deal at any time.
Ideally, the students should be bound by the terms and conditions they agree on when they sign the contract. Period.
Anything else is just deviating from the market which translates into wasted time, money and resources in the long run.

2026-01-25 10:08:13 UTC

- reply

Yes, he is too slow. He should already have started full scale bombings of Iran, and send in black helicopters to whisk away the Iran dictators.

2026-01-24 10:30:35 UTC

- reply

True. Add to that, that is you're not a left wokist, you are not welcome in many projects. They have become more about politics than code.

2026-01-22 08:59:43 UTC

- reply

There sure are!
First of all, the source, the internet connection. It is a service and in the EU (and probably the UK) it is not legal to sell these types of services to children under 16 (in some circumstances such as them living by themselvs) or 18 (when living with parents).
So by enforcing that, children would not have the capability to get hooked on social media.
The second thing that can be done is to treat parents who do provide their children with social media as parents who buy alcohol to their children.
The third thing is to make smartphones (since they rely on service plans) not available to under 16:s.
Establishing this also has the benefit of mitigating the hype of always having the latest and greatest phone so parents who are struggling economically will find that very beneficial as well since dumbphones will be the norm for under 16:s.
Proceeding with age limits basically slips in authoritarian control over the internet through the backdoor, and this will just spread until the government requires your ID in order for you to be abl to express yourself. That way lies dictatorship and authoritarianism.

2026-01-21 18:34:46 UTC

- reply

My strategy is extremely long term, so I never quibble about cents when I buy. But if you are more about the short term, then I understand why it might matter.

2026-01-21 16:15:49 UTC

- reply

For you and me, this is the truth!
But I was thinking more about the general public.
Like you, I bought recently. One of my online casino holdings unexpectedly dropped 20%, and it does that every 4-5 years or so, so I refilled.
Dividend was at 7.25% at the dip which is very nice! =)
With that dividend, they basically only need to maintain their marketposition, and it will be a nice investment over time.

2026-01-21 15:01:42 UTC

- reply

This is a wonderful interpretation, and one I think Trump himself will use, _if_ he won't make any progress with acquiring Greenland.
On the other hand, it can be argued that he could just have asked and avoided negative stock market effects making life worse for 100s of millions of people. It's kind of using a nuke to ask the guy next to you to stop farting.
Regardless... Trump is always great entertainment, and watching the inept and spineless EU leadership is also quite fun from a certain detached point of view.

2026-01-21 10:17:35 UTC

- reply

This is actually a good thing. Demand has tanked, so it is only natural that some universities will close.
Hopefully Trump will encourage closing of DEI-universities. Those abominations should not exist and serve only as leftist propaganda centers.

2026-01-20 20:37:34 UTC

- reply

Yes, this sounds right to me. So I guess what we are waiting for, is Keynes 2.0 who also adds the psychology of the government ministers to the mix in a scientific way. ;)

2026-01-20 20:36:43 UTC

- reply

What, for you, are the most "right" aspects of the EU?

2026-01-20 18:47:04 UTC

- reply

Could one say that a weakness of Keynsianism is that it does not take into account the weaknesses of human psychology?
Trump trying to fight the US central bank in court seems to me an excellent example of how little it takes to derail Keynsianism.
I also have to say that I do respct the US central bank chief for standing up to him. This I think signals that the man has character, and that he is probably more fit to wield public power than Trump is.