Initial commit

158 files changed, 8331 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/post/a-nation-of-temporarily-embarrassed-millionaires.md b/content/post/a-nation-of-temporarily-embarrassed-millionaires.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5256948
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/a-nation-of-temporarily-embarrassed-millionaires.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+title: "A Nation of Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires"
+date: 2021-11-19T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Gravel Institute
+The Gravel Institute, a crowd-funded organization that creates videos to combat right-wing disinformation, created a short video titled "You Will Never Be Rich".[1] Given their medium, which is short videos, they have very little time to get to the point. So you'll never get a complete picture of any given topic by watching their videos. That can be off-putting to some including myself who desire more detailed information, but there's definitely a place and a necessity for short-form, quickly digestible videos.
+
+Out of all the Gravel Institute's videos that I've seen, I feel that they mostly get the gist right, with some added partisan hyperbole. As an example, in "You Will Never Be Rich", they slip in 2 different definitions of the word rich. The John Steinbeck quote refers to Americans as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". Then right after that they say you're more likely to become homeless than a billionaire. So what counts as rich? Being a millionaire or being a billionaire?
+
+Nonetheless The Gravel Institute is making a really important point here. One that I don't think is hyperbole. Americans think one day they're going to catch their "big break". They'll be able to stop working (before retirement) and finally just enjoy life. Obviously for most of them, that's a myth.
+
+# Expectations Versus Reality
+For one, people's expectations of happiness given wealth don't match reality. Studies show having more wealth doesn't make you significantly happier after your basic needs are met. Maybe you'll be able to temporarily distract yourself from the warzone inside your head with unsustainable consumption of goods and services, increased social status, drugs, travel experiences, etcetra. But it won't hold you over for long. It's just not in your biology to be satisfied with what you've got. And if you're already content living in the present moment, you don't try to fill the void with wealth anyway because there isn't one.
+
+# You Will Never Be Rich
+Not only are Americans wrong that what they need in life is extreme wealth. As The Gravel Institute points out, Americans are wrong to think they even have a chance at getting rich. It's not hyperbole either that Americans think they can get rich. Many Americans really do think that. I know this isn't rigorous, but just look at the search results for the search terms "You Will Never Be Rich".[2] The most popular videos are about how to get rich, not about how unlikely it is. Anecdotally, I've known Americans who have dreamt of getting rich, whatever that means. None of them are. I think their belief that they can become rich stems from the lie they were told as children that they're exceptional.
+
+When I point out how unlikely it is for Americans to get rich, they respond with examples of people who "made it". But that doesn't change the statistics. Those people were extremely lucky. Personally knowing somebody who became rich doesn't mean it will happen for you. If you know somebody who got rich, ask yourself, do they seem significantly happier than before they were rich? Probably not. So why do you want to be rich anyway?
+
+## Crypto "Investing"
+The latest get rich quick hoax is crypto "investing". Americans think they're going to make it big on the next shitcoin that some crook shilled to them. Again, the statistics are overwhelmingly against that outcome. They think they found the next coin that's going to go big. Yet so do 100,000 other people and they're all wrong. Few people are ever going to make big money on crypto. The rest are just throwing their money into the trash.
+
+## The Lottery
+Consider this: Half of American adults say they play state lotteries.[3] What idiocy! News flash fellow Americans! You're never going to hit it big on the lottery! Stop blowing your money! You're effectively paying a tax for being bad at math. The state is punishing you for being stupid. They broadcast it far and wide when somebody does win that way it motivates more fools to blow their money on lottery tickets.
+
+# Crony Capitalism
+You know who benefits from Americans' false hope that they're going to get rich one day? The crony capitalists. The last thing they want is to start paying their fair share of taxes. They don't want socialism. They want you to believe that if only you possess the right mindset, if only you work hard enough, if only you have the right karma, with a smidgen of luck, then you'll become one of them. But it's a lie. Occasionally, somebody does get extremely lucky and make it big. But that's nothing more than the carrot that's being dangled in front of you to keep you playing along.
+
+## The Rich Are Selfish
+When you think about it, getting rich is an extremely selfish goal. Even if you do become rich, you have to be a callous and uncaring person to hold onto your wealth. Is that who you want to be? Maybe you could try to justify holding onto your wealth by investing it, with the goal of doing greater good in the future. But that's a very shaky argument.
+
+For one, there are organizations that need the funding right now in order to mitigate existential risks such as climate mayhem, nuclear weapons, nanotechnology, general artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, etcetra. Funding them in the future won't do any good if it's already too late to mitigate those risks. They need funds now.
+
+For two, even if you can justify keeping your wealth, the question of spending it remains unchanged. Money spent on yourself can't be spent on others. It will still makes sense to spend some money on yourself of course. But when you're filthy rich, you can afford to help others. Not donating to charity is willfully allowing other people in remote parts of the world to suffer and die all so you can live in luxury.
+
+## Summary
+In summary, you will never be rich. Not through crypto "investing" nor the lottery nor by any other means. Even if by extreme luck you do become rich, it won't make you happy assuming you already have basic needs met. Even if it does make you happy, you're just 1 person. Maybe you could help your family out, but that's still a relatively small group of people. If you have a conscience and you're a thinking person, you won't be able to hold onto that money anyway knowing children that would otherwise live will die if you don't donate it.
+
+# Embracing Socialism
+America does not need more zillionaires hoarding all the wealth. We don't need more scams giving common people false hope by occasionally allowing one of them to become rich. What America needs is to embrace socialism. We need to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor, allowing everyone to flourish. Socialism will reduce inequality which will reduce crime. We will all be safer. It will improve morale because nobody will slip through the cracks. If you fall on hard times, the state will have your back instead of locking you up for being poor. There will probably be less mental illness. We will have free college tuition, universal healthcare, and all the things other civilized countries already have.
+
+Wouldn't it be much better to live in a society where everybody takes care of one another rather than a few people hoarding all the wealth and the rest desperately wishing they were doing that? Which sounds like a more healthy society? Which would you rather live in? As the Gravel Institute points out, the pipe dream of being rich is holding us back from that socialist future. So stop "investing" in crypto. Stop buying lottery tickets. Stop looking for a get rich quick scheme. And start supporting socialist policies and candidates.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: You Will Never Be Rich](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=QDF4Esnn2G8)
+[2: You Will Never Be Rich Search Results](https://web.archive.org/web/20211119185642id_/https://vid.mint.lgbt/search?q=you+will+never+be+rich)
+[3: Half of Americans Play State Lotteries](https://news.gallup.com/poll/193874/half-americans-play-state-lotteries.aspx)
diff --git a/content/post/always-use-tor.md b/content/post/always-use-tor.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b44644
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/always-use-tor.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+title: "Always Use Tor"
+date: 2022-01-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What is Tor?
+Tor is an acronym for The Onion Router. Tor is free software that enables anonymous communication. The Tor Project[1], a non-profit 501c3 organization, is primarily responsible for maintaining Tor. It has been funded by human rights organizations, the US government, the national science foundation, NGOs and thousands of individual sponsors. It enables millions to use the internet in privacy, including me.
+
+# Why I Always Use Tor
+I use Tor for nearly everything. I use it for browsing the Web, sending and retrieving emails and files, SSH, Git, Atom/RSS, and updating system packages. When I'm trying out a new application, I immediately check if it can be used safely over Tor.
+
+Of course the normies are confused why I use Tor. They assume I must have something to hide because they basically have no understanding of the right to privacy at all. I'm not even going to bother addressing them because PRATT[2].
+
+What befuddles me isn't the normies. It's those in the privacy community who are shocked when I say I use Tor for everything. I've found others use it mostly for strictly sensitive transmissions. But I argue that you should always use it, whether or not you're doing anything sensitive.
+
+# Why You Should Always Use Tor
+Tor works because people use it for a variety of things. My relatively mundane Tor traffic masks people whose lives depend on Tor's anonymity. The more people that use Tor, the more anonymous everyone is.
+
+Many people in the privacy community only use Tor for sensitive searches, such as when they're searching medical symptoms. That's a great use of Tor, but it's more helpful for the anonymity of the network to use Tor for all searches. That's why I always use it, even when I'm doing nothing particularly sensitive.
+
+If you rarely use Tor, only when you think you need anonymity, your ISP can make an educated guess that you're doing something private. Depending on the context surrounding that, such as what you were doing before and after you went on Tor and the traffic pattern, they might be able to figure out what you were doing anyways. Analysis is harder if you always use it though.
+
+Personally, I've been using Tor for so long that I don't even mind the slowness anymore. I've gotten used to it. I'll gladly wait the few extra seconds for my data to load if it means having greater privacy. In my opinion, speed is overrated anyways.
+
+# Be Careful When Using Tor
+With that said, you need to be careful how you use Tor. Tor cannot protect you if you use it wrong. If you use Tor for applications that don't have explicit Tor support, be wary of IP address leakage. Only trust Tor running on machines you control and don't blindly route all traffic on your network or computer over Tor. VPNs are better for that sort of thing.
+
+Be aware that Tor is not a panacea. It has serious drawbacks.[3] To mitigate Tor's drawbacks, at least use it over a trusted VPN or bridge relay. Despite all the drawbacks, it's still the best piece of anonymity software available, for now.
+
+# The Internet is Broken
+In the future, we don't just need stronger anonymity networks. We need a new network stack. The existing stack was formalized a long time ago when security and privacy were not a concern.
+
+So, predictably, the physical layer, Ethernet, IP/BGP, TCP/UDP, DNS/X.509, and application-layer protocols are very insecure and lack basic privacy protections. Just to give a few examples:
+
+* DNS is centralized, censorable, and insecure
+* BGP is "the duct tape of the internet"
+* TCP/UDP packets are trivially spoofable, and insecure
+* IP lacks encryption and there aren't sufficient IPv4 addresses
+* HTTP leaks metadata, and the web is a bloated privacy disaster
+
+And I'm not even scratching the surface.[4]
+
+# GNUnet
+GNUnet[5] is a modern alternative network stack that seems to address the problems of the piss poor stack we're all forced to use today, although honestly I haven't done enough research on it. It's in heavy development without a stable release, but I'm optimistic.
+
+Ideally, something like GNUnet will fully replace the existing network stack so we can have real privacy, by default. But until then, a VPN + Tor is your best chance. So use it! And help out by hosting a relay[6] if you can.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Tor Project](https://www.torproject.org/)
+[2: PRATT](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times)
+[3: Tor Drawbacks](https://restoreprivacy.com/tor/)
+[4: You Broke The Internet](https://youbroketheinternet.org/)
+[5: GNUnet](https://www.gnunet.org/)
+[6: Tor Relays](https://community.torproject.org/relay/)
diff --git a/content/post/antinatalism.md b/content/post/antinatalism.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..24b4640
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/antinatalism.md
@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
+---
+title: "Antinatalism"
+date: 2021-09-05T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Richard Stallman's Antinatalism
+If you check the promoted page[1] of this blog, you'll see I have promoted Richard Stallman's article "Why it is important not to have children"[2]. I have the promoted page so that I have somewhere to promote others' ideas and so that I don't have to write a new post for each idea. But I still want to highlight a few of the points in that article that I find most compelling.
+
+The strongest reason Stallman gives for not having children is to avoid the global heating disaster (climate change) fueled by overconsumption and overpopulation. He notes that first-worlders who consume lots of resources especially should not have children. Even if there were no other reason not to have children, I consider averting climate change a strong enough reason on its own. Having one less child does more for the environment than all the other personal choices you can make combined. It's a no-brainer.
+
+Besides not contributing to climate change, there's also the legitimate concern about what kind of world children born today will live in. Given the current trajectory of climate change and the failure of nations to address the problem, children born today will be destined to live in a world where large regions are uninhabitable and there's constant conflict and war over resources unless drastic action is taken to prevent disaster. Is it moral to put another being into a world like that?
+
+He has a few other reasons on his article in favor of not having children or having only a small family. I agree with him that natalist pressure is a very Bad Thing. Having children shouldn't be something to be proud of or celebrated. It should be discouraged at least until the climate and ecological crises are averted.
+
+# David Benatar's Antinatalism
+Stallman says in his article that he doesn't wish for humanity to go extinct. He just wants the population to reach a sustainable level. But there are some who take it much further. They do want humanity to go extinct. According to them, it would be the best thing that could possibly happen. What distinguishes the antinatalism coming from Stallman from the antinatalism coming from people like David Benatar who want voluntary human extinction[3] is Benatar argues that procreating is always morally wrong or at best morally neutral.
+
+## Nihilism
+There is often confusion that antinatalists like Benatar are just nihilists. That's not the case at all. They're often very compassionate people who have a deep concern for the suffering of all life. Many of them are even vegans. And that compassion for the suffering of others is why they believe humanity, and in some cases all animals, should go extinct.
+
+## Psychologizing
+Some people who I think are unable to cope with the conclusion of Benatar's arguments try to psychologize him. They try to say that his own personal experience of life has caused him to hold such views. To psychologize him in this way instead of assessing his arguments based on their merits doesn't do justice to his arguments. I'm not saying the people who psychologize him are wrong about him. I'm saying even if they're right, it's irrelevant to the validity of his arguments.
+
+I've had similar experiences as Benatar where people psychologized my atheism. They assumed that I was an atheist because I was depressed. I wrote about this in my post Dealing With Close-Minded People[4]. It turns out this happens to atheists a lot. I know firsthand how frustrating it can be to be psychologized, so I'm going stick strictly to the arguments. I'm not going to speculate on the psychology of Benatar.
+
+## Asymmetry of Harms/Benefits
+According to Benatar, one way to arrive at antinatalism is through his asymmetry argument (copied from Wikipedia[5], license: CC-BY-SA 3.0):
+
+1. The presence of pain is bad
+2. The presence of pleasure is good
+3. The absence of pain is good even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone
+4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation
+
+> Regarding procreation, the argument follows that coming into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not coming into existence entails neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
+
+Since I consider objective morality to be incoherent, I'm going to convert Benatar's asymmetry into the language hypothetical imperatives to make it more coherent. If you want more explanation on this, I recommend reading my post on metaethics[6]. I'm also going to make a few other modifications that he wouldn't object to which will make his argument easier to understand:
+
+1. I value pain negatively
+2. I value pleasure positively
+3. I value the absence of pain positively
+4. I value the absence of pleasure neutrally unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation
+
+If we use only premises 1 and 2, we can adopt a linear sliding scale:
+
+```
+  (Bad)      (Neutral)       (Good)
+<--pain----------|----------pleasure-->
+```
+
+There is everything from the most excruciating pain to the most blissful pleasure. The absence of pain and the absence of pleasure need not be illustrated on this scale because they possess no value. Since pain is valued negatively and pleasure positively, presumably, they cancel each other out. Therefore it's possible to do pain/pleasure calculus like this:
+
+```
+1. I broke my leg (-500)
+2. I ate a tasty ice cream (+1)
+-------------------------------
+Total: -499
+```
+
+The enjoyment from eating an ice cream is overwhelmed by breaking your leg. If you were to do both in the same day, you'd probably consider it a bad day. This lines up with our common sense.
+
+### Absurdity
+Where Benatar deviates from this model is in premises 3 and 4. He places values on the absence of pain and pleasure. If we interpret premises 3 and 4 in an absolute sense, that means for instance that the absence of pain cancels out pain, since pain is bad and its absence good. His calculus would look like this:
+
+```
+1. I broke my leg (-500)
+2. I didn't break my other leg (+500)
+-------------------------------------
+Total: +0
+```
+
+Clearly this makes no sense. If you break your leg, in that moment, the pain of your broken leg isn't cancelled out by the fact that your other leg remains intact. That's absurd. But that's exactly what Benatar's argument seems to imply.
+
+### Self-Contradictory
+To further illustrate the point that Benatar's value system makes absolutely no sense when his premises are interpreted in an absolute sense, I'm going to create 3 more diagrams representing his argument:
+
+```
+1a. individual doesn't yet exist
+        (Neutral)                                    (Good)
+<--absence of pleasure------------------------------pleasure-->
+
+
+1b. individual already exists
+          (Bad)             (Neutral???)          (Good)
+<--absence of pleasure------some pleasure------more pleasure-->
+
+
+2. individual exists or doesn't yet exist
+     (Bad)            (Neutral???)              (Good)
+<--more pain--------------pain---------------absence of pain-->
+```
+
+Diagram 1a makes intuitive sense. The absence of pleasure is neutral. As you move toward more pleasure, that's more good.
+
+Now let's look at diagram 1b. Surely anyone could agree that there is a spectrum of pleasure from no pleasure to perfect bliss. That justifies the diagram. But if absence of pleasure is bad and pleasure is good, then that would mean some pleasure is neutral. This contradicts Benatar's second premise that pleasure is good.
+
+The same for diagram 2. Surely anyone could agree that there is a spectrum of pain from no pain at all to unbearable pain. But if pain is bad and absence of pain is good, then that would mean some pain is neutral. This contradicts Benatar's first premise that pain is bad.
+
+### Equivocation Fallacy
+What's really going on in this argument has become quite clear to me. If I didn't misread Benatar, then his argument conflates relative and absolute scales of value. Colloquially, we say things like "not feeling pain is good". But we don't mean that it's good in the sense that eating ice cream is good. We just mean no pain is good relative to being in pain. Benatar's argument benefits from this confusion by conflating the absolute and relative sense of good and bad. Here's how he does it:
+
+When it comes to Benatar's first 2 premises, they're written in absolute terms. Pain is absolutely bad. Pleasure is absolutely good. But his last 2 premises are written in relative terms. The absence of pain is good (premise 3) relative to its presence. Lack of pleasure is neutral relative to its presence given there's no one to feel it (premise 4). Do you see what's going on with the argument now?
+
+Benatar ought to state all his premises more clearly, otherwise it's like comparing apples to oranges. Benatar shouldn't say pain is bad and lack of pain is good in the same sentence. That causes confusion. He should instead clarify by saying "Pain is bad. Lack of pain is better". I think this confusion could entirely explain why people agree with Benatar's intuition. They're committing an equivocation fallacy between the first 2 premises that are interpreted absolutely and the second 2 that are interpreted relatively.
+
+This might be further confused by the fact that the mind adapts to its present circumstance. For instance, if you suffer from chronic physical pain, your "baseline" neutral on the scale of well-being probably adjusts to that pain. So even though you're in physical pain, you're not actually suffering. It's just a raw sensation or your brain learns to tune it out. When the physical pain goes away, you may temporarily feel an increase in well-being. Here are 2 diagrams to illustrate my point:
+
+```
+Let the ● symbol represent the current location on the scale of an individual with chronic pain.
+
+
+3. chronic pain present
+<--no physical pain-----------------●--extreme physical pain-->
+<--suffering-------------●--neutral----------------wellbeing-->
+
+
+4. chronic pain absent
+<--no physical pain--●-----------------extreme physical pain-->
+<--suffering---------------neutral-------------●---wellbeing-->
+```
+
+### Preexisting Persons
+Since interpreting Benatar's premises in an absolute value sense leads to contradiction, let's clarify his premises to give him the benefit of the doubt:
+
+1. I value pain negatively
+2. I value pleasure positively
+3. I value the absence of pain more than its presence
+4. I value the absence of pleasure equally to its presence unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation
+
+Even with clarified premises, Benatar's fourth premise places unnecessary importance on the act of procreation. I value well-being, in the end. If I create a happy person, that's equally morally good as making an already existing person happy. What's the difference between creating a happy conscious mind versus making an existing conscious mind happy? To me and I suspect to many others, there is no difference. To Benatar, that difference is everything.
+
+Let's do a thought experiment for intuition sake. Imagine you are god. You decide to give the people of Earth a heavenly existence. The people of Earth are extraordinarily happy all the time. There is no suffering, not even a single mediocre moment for anyone. Everyone's debts are forgiven. Love and kindness and compassion permeate every human being. Every day is better than the last. Imagine the best moment of your life amplified a trillion times occurring in every human being every single microsecond.
+
+For your next project, you create Earth 2.0, a duplicate Earth. You populate it with duplicate human beings with the exact same properties as you bestowed upon the original Earth's humans. It's full of happy people and completely free of suffering.
+
+Now according to Benatar, making the people of Earth happy was a very good thing because they already existed. But creating a second, duplicate Earth full of happy beings would've been just as good as never having done so. What a bizarre value system. I suspect if people actually understand the implications of Benatar's asymmetry, very few would agree with it.
+
+### Intuition Smuggling
+Benetar goes on to offer 4 other asymmetries to explain his intuitions. I won't cover all of them in detail. I just want to point out how they fall apart when analyzed closely. Basically he's using the technique of trying to smuggle in intuitions we have about the real world and using them in a context where they don't apply.
+
+For example, Benatar thinks since you don't see anything wrong with not creating more happy beings, you agree with him that there's nothing wrong with the absence of pleasure when there's no one to miss out. But not so fast! Why do we have the intuition that not having children is ethically neutral?
+
+Well people generally try to have as many children as they want to have. Any more than that, they assume, would make them less happy. There's no assurance that the child will grow up to have a happy life on balance, especially if it's unwanted. So the problem with Benatar's argument is when he uses the word "happy" in talking about bringing more beings into the world, he's smuggling in all the extra baggage of wanting the child, the child not making you unhappy, the child itself being happy, etc.
+
+Of course you don't feel guilty for not having more children than you want. It's not because you agree with David. It's because there's a good chance that an unwanted child would reduce overall happiness anyway, not increase it.
+
+Another example he gives is that we don't feel sad that happy deserted islanders don't exist. Therefore we must agree with his case. Again, he's smuggling in implicit assumptions we have about the world. Why isn't the nonexistence of happy deserted islanders sad?
+
+Again the word "happy" is doing all the work here. Perhaps we don't feel sadness for the nonexistence of people because there's no guarantee that their lives would be happy. For many people, perhaps even most, life is a struggle. People sympathetic to Buddhism such as myself would even contend that the character of conscious experience is unsatisfying most of the time.
+
+Also, evolutionarily speaking, we value our close relatives over strangers. It makes sense that the theoretical happiness of potential people we don't even know and will never get a chance to meet isn't a big concern. Our intuitions would probably run the opposite way if it were a relative though. It's the same feeling as when our favorite character in a book or movie dies. Our uncaring attitude towards the islanders depends on our not having a personal connection with their lives. All this implicit information is smuggled into David's argument, without being explicitly stated. But once it is, his argument begins to crumble.
+
+The rest of David's points are different ways of either restating his original asymmetry argument or smuggling in our normal intuitions, so I won't cover them. I believe his arguments merely confuse people into thinking they agree by equivocation and subtly smuggling in extra assumptions that are applied in the wrong context.
+
+## Suffering Experienced by Descendents
+But Benetar has more than just the asymmetry argument. And the rest of his arguments seem much more coherent at least. He claims that we are responsible for the suffering of our descendents for having brought them into the world.
+
+If your quality of life is extremely low and you cannot support a child and you voluntarily bring a child into the world, I agree. If responsibility means anything, you're partially responsible for their suffering. By the same token, if you have strong reasons to believe your child will be extremely happy and you give birth to an extremely happy child, all else being equal, you can take partial credit for their happiness.
+
+Certainly the potential suffering of descendents is cause for some people not to have children. But if you want to make the case that nobody should have children because of the suffering of descendents, we have to talk about depressive realism[7].
+
+### Depressive Realism
+Depressive realism is the idea that depressed people are the ones who see the world most clearly. It's the optimists who are kidding themselves. This is in contrast to conventional wisdom which says depressed people have a negative cognitive bias.
+
+Antinatalists claim that most people do not evaluate reality correctly. They claim people use repressive psychological mechanisms to avoid admitting how bad life actually is. Evolutionarily, this would make sense since individuals unable to repress the depression would be less likely to procreate.
+
+Some antinatalists further argue that the lives of all animals are very bad, not only the lives of humans. This philosophy is known as "universal antinatalism". According to universal antinatalism, since humans are the only species capable of understanding the predicament, we ought to sterilize other animal species to save them from their default state in the wild which is a life of struggle.
+
+I don't know whether or not depressive realism is true. I'm also not sure whether animals suffer more than they flourish. I will give the antinatalists credit on these points. The suffering of descendents does seem to be the strongest argument in favor of no one having children and animal sterilization out of all the antinatalist arguments.
+
+However there is the possibility that future technology might deliver us eternal bliss so good it would retroactively justify all humanity's past suffering and the suffering of all other beings. This is a point Matt Dillahunty made when he addressed antinatalism. However it's not a valid point since it seems equally plausible that future technology could create suffering, perhaps even unfathomable torment beyond anything we've ever experienced. As a side note, Matt's criticism of antinatalism[8] seems to miss the point.
+
+Anyway, there are a lot of unknowns about the future. We don't know how good eternal bliss would be. We don't know how bad eternal hell would be. We don't know the probabilities of either becoming a reality. We can't reason based on possible future deliverance. It's too uncertain. All we can reason on is what's happening right now and what has happened in the past.
+
+Benatar has cited historical evidence[9] trying to show that the rare moments of bliss we experience do not offset all our suffering and the additional suffering we cause other animals[10]. This seems to be a plausible hypothesis. But we also shouldn't forget that humans have made a lot of progress in quality of life over the years as well.
+
+## Famine Relief
+David Benetar also argues that:
+
+> "...in a situation where a huge number of people live in poverty, we should cease procreation and divert these resources, that would have been used to raise our own children, to the poor." - Wikipedia, licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0
+
+To create a new being and increase overconsumption and overpopulation without confidence that the new being would enjoy life all at the cost of being able to definitively improve the life of an already existing person seems selfish. So I agree. It's better to spend your resources on something that definitely reduces suffering and increases well-being without creating extra problems. So that wraps up Benatar's arguments.
+
+# Tying Up Loose Ends
+I still didn't address the popular arguments other antinatalists make. I'll quickly say something about those.
+
+## Kantian Imperative
+There is the Kantian Imperative. I'm not going to address Kantian antinatalism[11] because I don't respect it enough to spend time arguing against it. See my criticism of Kant in metaethics[6].
+
+## Impossibility of Consent
+There's also the Impossibility of Consent argument. The argument for not procreating based on impossibility of consent[12] merely smuggles in the usual reasons we care about consent and takes them completely out of context, the same as Benatar's 4 other asymmetries do.
+
+For instance, we care about sexual consent because without it, there's no bodily autonomy. We care about medical consent for treatment for the same reasons. The common denominator for consent is it gives individuals control over their lives. Control over your own life generally leads to less suffering.
+
+In the context of procreation, it's unclear how consent could apply. How does the concept of control over one's own life apply if one doesn't even exist yet? This argument seems to treat consent as an end in and of itself. Consent is not an end in and of itself. Well-being is what really matters to most of us and interjecting consent into this weird context of a nonexistent person doesn't help us think more clearly about how procreation influences well-being.
+
+I'm not saying it's necessarily invalid to consider consent when talking about procreation. But why think in such convoluted terms when you don't have to? Why not just consider the effects of procreation on well-being directly? There's no need to muddy the waters with consent.
+
+## Adoption
+Finally, there's the argument that not having children opens up the possibility of adopting or fostering already existing children, and there are many children who need the care. Therefore it's a good alternative to procreation. I have no objections to this argument. It seems very reasonable for similar reasons that the famine relief argument is convincing.
+
+# Summary
+## Environmental Antinatalism
+In conclusion, I agree with Stallman's arguments against having children. I don't think procreating is a good idea for most first-worlders right now. We need the global population to go down for the sake of sustainability.
+
+## Suffering of Descendents
+As for Benetar, his asymmetry argument is absurd. But he does have a point about the suffering of descendents. I'm agnostic towards depressive realism. I'm not trying to promote depression. I'm just not going to say it's true or false based merely on my own personal experience because there are 8 billion other people on the planet all with different experiences of the world. If your intuition is that depressive realism is totally implausible and life is mostly good and most people do evaluate the reality of their own well-being correctly, then that's fine. I'm just not that certain.
+
+If depressive realism is true though, we shouldn't continue the species hoping future technology will make all the suffering worthwhile. It seems equally likely that future technology will create more suffering. The arguments in favor of not having children in order to have more time and money to help the poor and adopt or foster children seem compelling.
+
+If the lives of other animal species consist of mostly suffering as well, we ought to sterilize them to rescue them from existence before we voluntarily extinct our own species. If depressive realism is false for animals and we humans were altruistic enough to go extinct for the sake of other animal species, we would also be altruistic enough to treat them better in the first place and live in harmony with nature as other species do. The pessimistic antinatalist positions about human nature wouldn't necessarily apply any more.
+
+I conclude therefore that there's no point in considering voluntary human extinction in order to protect other animal life.
+
+## Other Antinatalist Positions
+The arguments for antinatalism coming from the Kantian imperative and impossibility of consent are not respectable enough for me to spend too much time on in this post. Addressing the asymmetry argument seemed worthwhile though because a lot of people buy into it.
+
+## Practicality
+From a pragmatic point of view, humans would never be willing to go extinct voluntarily. Given the uniqueness of our species and our technological advancement, we should not take such a matter lightly. As far as we know, there's no other life like us in the rest of the universe. To extinguish ourselves based on an estimation of well-being which we might be getting wrong could be a grave mistake.
+
+While I consider antinatalism supported by suffering of descendents at least plausible, it seems like more people would be open to hearing Stallman's antinatalism than Benetar and his colleagues' versions. Therefore as a matter of strategy, if you want to promote antinatalism, it's probably best to promote environmental antinatalism and give reasons having children is personally undesirable rather than telling people not to procreate because "life is mostly suffering".
+
+# Conclusion
+I believe I'm more open-minded to antinatalist reasoning than many other philosophers who seem to search for reasons to quickly dismiss people like Benatar. I understand that ideas don't live in a vacuum. They live in real human minds and the idea that life is mostly suffering could be a very hard pill to swallow, or even consider.
+
+Writing this post wasn't easy. Considering the voluntary extinction of my own species does not give me joy but I think it's important that these ideas are out there and that antinatalism gets an evenhanded assessment.
+
+If you made it this far, I appreciate you taking the time to read my blog. Thank you. As always, if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, you can find my email on my about page[13].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Promoted Page](../../../../promoted/)
+[2: Why it is important not to have children.](https://stallman.org/children.html)
+[3: Voluntary Human Extinction Movement](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement)
+[4: Dealing With Close-Minded People](../../../../2021/08/28/dealing-with-close-minded-people/)
+[5: Wikipedia Benatar's Asymmetry](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Asymmetry_between_harms_and_benefits)
+[6: Metaethics](../../../../2020/10/11/metaethics/)
+[7: Depressive Realism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Depressive_realism)
+[8: Atheist Debates - Answering Antinatalism](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=n9BFG0Xh4Wg)
+[9: Consequences of Procreation](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Consequences_of_procreation)
+[10: Misanthropy](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Misanthropy)
+[11: Kantian Imperative](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Kantian_imperative)
+[12: Impossibility of Consent](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Impossibility_of_consent)
+[13: About Page](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/article-you-should-be-using-an-old-computer.md b/content/post/article-you-should-be-using-an-old-computer.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..88ca525
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/article-you-should-be-using-an-old-computer.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+title: "[Article] You Should Be Using an Old Computer"
+date: 2021-01-22T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+I was going to write my own post about this subject until I discovered Luke Smith, a GNU/Linux technology Youtuber, already wrote an article about it:
+
+[Luke Smith's Article](https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/oldcomputer)
+
+His reasons for recommending an old computer (specifically Thinkpads) are:
+
+* New computers are unnecessary for most people
+* New computers are expensive
+* New computers are slim and break easier
+* New computers are impractical to repair yourself
+* New computers contain a potential backdoor
+
+You can read his article for more details on each point. I have a few comments to make. Smith cites processor-intensive video rendering as a reason you might need a newer computer. There's also training/running neural networks, mining digital currency and some exhaustive search algorithms. But again the average person won't be doing those things.
+
+# Intel Management Engine
+Smith also claims the Intel Management Engine (Intel ME), the hidden processor in every modern Intel chip, is a government backdoor. This isn't yet proven but the code in Intel ME is proprietary and secret, so it should be treated as a potential intentional backdoor. At minimum it's a security hazard[1]. Smith notes that AMD processors have basically the same problem.
+
+The potential backdoor is really the crux of the ethical problem. Even if you don't care about the price and you never drop your computer and you never replace any parts there's still the potential backdoor. Intel ME is always on even when your computer is turned off. It can't be removed. No one knows what it actually does and Intel won't tell us. We know it has full control over system memory and it can connect to the internet. If you're at all tempted to use the nothing to hide argument[2] I only ask that you apply that same logic to Intel. If Intel has nothing to hide, why can't they show us the source code for the ME? Why keep it secret? Why not allay all fears of a backdoor once and for all by releasing the source code? Unless of course it is in fact a backdoor.
+
+Maybe you're above nothing to hide though. You understand privacy is a human right. But, you reason, the Intel ME isn't a big deal because an interested government could find out what they wanted to know some other way. Besides even without ME there's other embedded software that, however unlikely it is, could possibly also have backdoors. All that's beyond your "threat model" anyway. This goes back to a previous post I made. By using the least potentially backdoored computer possible, you raise the bar on privacy[3] (and freedom!). That's a cause we all need to be fighting for irrespective of threat models.
+
+# RetroFreedom
+The next most obvious question is "Where do I buy a computer without a backdoor?". I recommend RetroFreedom[4] (formerly Minifree). Leah Rowe[5] operates the site. She maintains the Libreboot[6] project, a free as in freedom alternative BIOS that ships with the old Thinkpads she sells. You can purchase products with cryptocurrency and several addons and upgrades are offered. I don't mind the markup in price since I know it goes toward an important free software project. I can personally attest to the quality of the laptops from RetroFreedom. I've bought several laptops from there running exclusively free software and I'm very satisfied.
+
+# Free Software
+I would never again use a nonfree laptop to do my everyday personal computing. I've given up videogames since all the popular titles are nonfree requiring me to run the Winblows operating system. I quit my job[7] to avoid promoting proprietary software. I dropped out of college[8] so I didn't have to use invasive proprietary malware. Too many people have told me I'm too extreme. I care too much about free software. Life is just too short to be so picky. But to them I would say this:
+
+What does it say about society that the only way to get a non-backdoored laptop is to buy from a specific set of computers that are around 13 years old, replace the WiFi card, use special equipment to flash the BIOS with Libreboot/Coreboot and replace the operating system with GNU/Linux? Or pay someone else to do the procedure.
+
+Further, what you have to realize is there is a war being waged on general-purpose computing. Every year manufacturers come up with new ways to make your computer harder to repair thereby increasing e-waste. Every year software companies make their ecosystems more locked down giving you less and less control over your own devices. To not use an old Thinkpad is to be on the wrong side of this war. I do not want to live in a world where I don't have control over what I buy and cannot repair it.
+
+Most people living in 1st world countries today are far too complacent. I can't emphasize this enough. So when people ask me why I care so much, why I've given up so much, I look at them in bewilderment. Why don't they? If people like them don't start caring soon we're going to live in a dark world where computer users are totally subjugated. The 13 year old Thinkpads suffice for 95% of use cases for now but that won't always be true. Proprietary threats are looming. Change needs to happen now, not 10 years from now. So use a free laptop even if it's inconvenient because it's not getting any easier.
+
+# Privacy
+There's also the whole privacy issue of having a potentially backdoored laptop. A college professor once told me privacy is dead. As if it were just a fact of the modern era and I hadn't realized it yet. As long as there are people like me are around privacy is not dead. I will never accept a world without privacy. I will resist backdoors into my computer. I'll tell you another thing. It wasn't all the free software people that inspired this in me. It was the haters. Those who said it didn't matter, privacy is dead, it's unwinnable, I should just give up so my life is easier, etc. So please tell me any of those things. The naysayers keep me motivated. I don't waste my time wondering whether free software is a fight we can win. It's a fight we must win. As long as there's any chance of winning, and even if it seems like there's not, we must try.
+
+You don't need to quit your job and drop out to create change. All you have to do is create a rift. Get people to take notice. Force them to act by being unmoving in your commitment to free software. You won't be popular. And you'll be told you're wrong a lot. You might even start to doubt yourself. But let others say whatever they want and stay strong anyway. You have an advantage they don't: the knowledge that you're doing the right thing. You do have power. Those in power would like you to think that you don't, but you do. Wield it wisely.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/intels-management-engine-security-hazard-and-users-need-way-disable-it](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/intels-management-engine-security-hazard-and-users-need-way-disable-it)
+[2: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide)
+[3: raising-the-bar-on-privacy](../../../../2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy/)
+[4: https://retrofreedom.com/](https://retrofreedom.com/)
+[5: https://vimuser.org/](https://vimuser.org/)
+[6: https://libreboot.org/](https://libreboot.org/)
+[7: why-i-left-its](../../../../2020/07/02/why-i-left-its/)
+[8: the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor](../../../../2020/03/30/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor/)
diff --git a/content/post/atom-and-rss.md b/content/post/atom-and-rss.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..28f7fac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/atom-and-rss.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+title: "Atom and RSS"
+date: 2020-12-17T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Atom/RSS
+Most netizens are vaguely familiar with this symbol: 
+[RSS icon [IMG]](../../../../resource/feed-icon-28x28.png)
+It represents Atom[1] and RSS[2]. From Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0[3]):
+
+## RSS
+> "RSS (RDF Site Summary or Really Simply Syndication) is a web feed that allows users and applications to access updates to websites in a standardized, computer-readable format. These feeds can, for example, allow a user to keep track of many different websites in a single news aggregator. The news aggregator will automatically check the RSS feed for new content, allowing the list to be automatically passed from website to website or from website to user...Websites usually use RSS feeds to publish frequently updated information, such as blog entries, news headlines, or episodes of audio and video series."
+
+## Atom
+> "The Atom format was developed as an alternative to RSS. Ben Trott[4], an advocate of the new format that became Atom, believed that RSS had limitations and flaws—such as lack of on-going innovation and its necessity to remain backward compatible—and that there were advantages to a fresh design."
+
+So that's Atom and RSS in short. In the real world Atom/RSS feeds really don't get the usage they deserve. For me an Atom/RSS feed reader is indispensable. Instead of checking 20 different webpages manually scanning each page for new content, I can just open my feed reader. It shows me all my web content in a streamlined fashion. Unlike social media, I have full control over my Atom/RSS feeds. In fact, Atom/RSS feeds are a big reason I don't have social media accounts and haven't for some time. Why go on social media when you can make it come to you? It's easy to get feeds for most popular social media sites including but not limited to Youtube, Reddit, Tumblr, Medium, Wordpress, Blogger and Twitter.
+
+I'm not inherently against social media. I'm just against proprietary walled gardens which is most social media that people actually use. Atom/RSS feeds make it easy to keep your distance from social media without missing out. I'm aware I could use free[5], federated social networks like Mastadon[6]. I just don't have a need. For future reference, if I sign up for social media, I'll link my profile on my about page in the identity[7] section. Any social media accounts not linked under the identity section claiming to belong to me or even appearing to be mine are sockpuppets[8]. For now I just have this blog.
+
+# How to Use Atom/RSS
+Now that you know what Atom/RSS is and you have an idea what it's used for, I'll move on to the meat of this post: how to use Atom/RSS. To begin using Atom/RSS yourself, you'll need to install a feed reader. There is mature feed reader software available for all major platforms including mobile. Decent feed readers support both Atom and RSS and you probably won't need to know which is which. Most sites including this one still use RSS. I do plan to eventually switch my site feed[9] over to Atom since it's more modern.
+
+Once you find the feed symbol 
+[RSS icon [IMG]](../../../../resource/feed-icon-28x28.png)
+on the webpage with the feed you want, just copy paste the link adding it into your feed reader and you're golden. After that your reader will take care of retrieving the content from that feed automatically. If you can't find a feed icon on a site, that doesn't mean the site doesn't support RSS. They may just not advertise it. Search the web for that site's RSS feed to see if anything turns up. If nothing turns up, there are websites that will parse the page you want turning it into a web feed. As long as you're not required to log in to view the content, you can probably find an RSS feed for it.
+
+Decent Atom/RSS aggregators allow you to create groups of feeds, so you can combine related feeds or view them separately. You can even aggregate all your feeds into 1 big feed if that's what you want. With Atom/RSS, the choice is yours. If you stop reading a feed, it's as easy to remove from your aggregator as it was to add. Sites with lots of content offer Atom/RSS feeds based on category. For example if you're only interested in my posts about "computing", you can subscribe only to this RSS feed.
+
+The experience you have with Atom/RSS ultimately boils down to the features your feed reader software has and how you set up your feeds. The greatest benefit of Atom/RSS in my opinion is Atom/RSS gives you have full control over the information you see and how it's organized. Popular social media outlets rarely give you that level of control, so definitely give Atom/RSS a try if you're not already using them.
+
+# Motivation
+I was motivated to write this post for the same reason I was motivated to write about using email[10]. Seeing the way most people consume feed-based digital content leaves something to be desired. Most netizens don't know there's an easier way to get web content than going to each individual website meanwhile capturing all the Goo-lag[11] analytics[12] and tracking cookies in their browser.
+
+I made this post just to spread awareness that Atom and RSS are useful, easy to use, and ubiquitous on websites. I'd really like to see them gain more popularity. It was one of those things I couldn't not write about because so many people are missing out on it. People who are already aware of Atom/RSS probably didn't learn much but this post is only an introduction for those that have never used them before. Regardless, I hope you learned something and happy aggregating!
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Atom_(standard)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Atom_(standard))
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/RSS](https://wikiless.org/wiki/RSS)
+[3: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Benjamin_Trott](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Benjamin_Trott)
+[5: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software))
+[7: /about](../../../../about/)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet))
+[9: /atom.xml](../../../../atom.xml)
+[10: /2020/10/29/using-email](../../../../2020/10/29/using-email/)
+[11: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag)
+[12: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html)
diff --git a/content/post/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work.md b/content/post/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..08517b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work.md
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+---
+title: "Automation, Bullshit Jobs, And Work"
+date: 2022-01-22T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+This entry was inspired by Bullshit Jobs[1], a theory put forth by famed anarchist anthropology professor David Graeber[2]. Ever since reading it, I have been itching to write about my own observations related to automation, bullshit jobs, and work. I'll start with a few personal anecdotes related to workplace bullshit.
+
+# Prolonged Work
+My own work history isn't very extensive, but I've witnessed a lot of workplace bullshit. Unfortunately I'm going to have to be vague about those experiences since I'm not sure if I can legally share too many details, but I think you'll still find reading worthwhile.
+
+One of my first encounters with workplace bullshit was when I noticed my coworkers purposely working slowly so tasks took longer to complete. My ex-coworker told me when he was first hired that his team member told him not to work too fast or else there would be no work left. Eventually it dawned on me that purposely wasting one's time by prolonging work was commonplace.
+
+I understood why he prolonged his work. It was to give him more hours to make more money. But I couldn't help but think how absolutely soul-crushing it is that people purposely waste time they'll never get back just to have more money. And they weren't greedy people. They were people just trying to get by.
+
+What surprised me more was when I brought this phenomenon up to others, they were apathetic. Some of them nonchalantly shared with me their own stories of bullshitting on the job for money. I learned wasting time on the job is not only very common, but it's seen as normal.
+
+My only thought was "Surely there are better ways to organize society than this. Having a system that incentivizes timewasting is just stupid." And I still believe that. Just imagine all the different ways human societies can plausibly be organized and we're supposed to believe that the optimal economy is one where people are incentivized to spend thousands of collective hours bullshitting at work? I don't buy it.
+
+Why do people act like a better system is impossible? Do I just have a more active imagination than everybody else? I mean it doesn't take that much imagination to think of improvements. For example, what about UBI[3] where the government redistributes wealth from the hyper-rich to everybody else?
+
+If everyone could live comfortably without being forced to work, I think that might help eliminate some of the bullshit. How many people would stay for an extra four hours per day at work doing nothing if they could have a high standard of living without doing that? I'm guessing not many.
+
+# Pointless Work
+One day I witnessed my coworker joking with my boss about how pointless a certain position was in the organization. By pointless, I mean there would have been no negative consequences to the organization or anybody outside it if there was nobody to fill that position.
+
+And I worked in that position before. I knew it was bullshit. My coworkers knew it was bullshit. Even the most senior supervisor knew it was bullshit. Even an outsider paying keen attention could've figured out it was bullshit. Yet I and many others spent hours of our lives there.
+
+A different day, my manager let the cat out of the bag. He told me his boss wasted a huge amount of money on unnecessary equipment which led to unmanageable complexity and rather than using cheap, simple equipment which would've done the same job, several people now had to be employed full-time to constantly maintenance the complexity.
+
+As a side note, David Graeber would refer to these employees hired to maintenance the complexity as "duct tapers". Duct tapers are workers who fix problems temporarily which could be fixed permanently.
+
+Anyways, my manager was then told that the bullshit was good because it gave people jobs and fixing the problem permanently would be cruel to those employed to fix it temporarily. I couldn't even disagree because it wasn't wrong. The bullshit does give people jobs. It just made me start to question what kind of stupid system incentivizes such bullshit.
+
+Since there were several departments in the organization and money was allocated separately to each, each department was careful not to do the job of the other even when it made more sense. And since each department had a fixed budget, instead of paying employees the leftovers, it was "invested" (blown) on pointless new equipment which required constant maintenance.
+
+Before I was hired, the organization had supervisory positions that were so useless one worker didn't even bother showing up. He'd clock in, leave, then come back just to clock out. And nobody noticed because there was no need of a supervisor there. He was only fired after the boss caught him not coming to work.
+
+How these bullshit positions came to exist in the first place I have no idea, but I suspect they were probably ended shortly after the worker was fired for not showing up. At that point the department probably couldn't conceal how pointless those positions really were. But that's just my speculation.
+
+I'll grant that with any big employer, some bullshit is probably unavoidable. But my personal experience reflects a greater degree of workplace bullshit than should be caused by mere organization scale. Based on my observations I think two of the main causes of excess bullshit are government-mandated red tape and, as I've already mentioned, workers having a low standard of living without accepting the bullshit.
+
+# Automation
+Automation is another important topic that ties into all this. I remember having the same conversation with a few different people. I brought up automation in a positive context, saying how it would be nice for robots to take miserable jobs so humans don't have to do them. Invariably, the first response I always got was that automation is bad because people will starve without jobs.
+
+Again, I can't contest the fact that pointless work creates jobs people survive on and I'm not pretending that's not the case. But in a potential future where survival doesn't rely on employment, automation seems good in the sense that it frees people from miserable labor.
+
+In a sane economic system, less jobs would be good news. It would mean there's less work to be done which would mean more leasure time for everybody. Only in today's backwards economy do people worry about not having enough work, even if that work is pointless.
+
+It doesn't seem to add up that after rapid technological progress which automated much of the labor humans used to perform, here we still are with a forty hour work week. Predictions a hundred years ago said we'd have a fifteen hour work week. So what's preventing this?
+
+According to Graeber, the reason we're not working less is basically because the ruling class has figured out that a happy, productive population with free time goes against their interests. They want people financially enslaved so they don't have time to pose a threat.
+
+He also notes in his 2013 essay[4] that people's attitudes about work are extremely convenient to the ruling class. Those who shame the unemployed for not working hard doing pointless jobs they hate are unknowingly spreading a meme that keeps the ruling class in power. It ensures that the working class is too busy doing pointless box-ticking to incite the political inertia needed to change their circumstances.
+
+Another example of this is people who criticize protestors for not being at work. "Get a job!" they shout. If you go to enough protests, and I've been involved in a few, then you'll probably eventually hear that phrase. I'm reminded of a relevant paragraph about Fractal Wrongness[5] from RationalWiki (CC-BY-SA 3.0):
+
+> "Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, which requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one—kind of like a recursive Gish Gallop, where each point both surrounds and is surrounded by an equally wrong argument." - RationalWiki
+
+I imagine this is what it would be like to debate the kind of person who shouts "get a job" at protestors.
+
+Returning to the topic of automation, people seem pessimistic about not having to work. I can understand why people don't want jobs they like to be automated, but why are people so pessimistic about not having to work jobs that are, by their own estimation, shitty, demeaning, and miserable? How can this be accounted for?
+
+# Self-Righteous Automasochism
+I find that people who don't want miserable labor to go away also happen to possess this frame of mind which I call "self-righteous automasochism". People feel a moral superiority over others by working jobs they hate, as if they earn imaginary bonus points for being unhappy. They wear their misery like a badge of honor and will judge you harshly for not doing the same.
+
+They think if you're not working hard on something that makes you miserable, then you're a parasite. And they have competitions between whose labor is more arduous, imagining that the person with the most miserable job has moral superiority. They're the people who brag about how many hours they work.
+
+Self-righteous automasochists are envious and critical of those who have jobs they actually enjoy. For them, work is supposed to be suffering. If you're not suffering, then you must not be doing real work.
+
+The elites and the rich still retain moral superiority because workers imagine that the wealthy worked their way up and deserve to be there. This is in direct contradiction with their experience of lazy incompetent bosses who keep getting promotion after promotion.
+
+I think the appropriate response to this is we have to rethink what work is all about. Society mostly follows the old Puritan work ethic[6]. It says that your worth is determined by your work. It's the idea that hard work is noble in and of itself, regardless whether it actually provides value to society.
+
+My biggest complaint against the Puritan work ethic is it misses the point of work. In one way or another, all valuable work boils down to caring for oneself and others. And by caring, I mean it in the broadest possible sense. Teachers educate which is a form of caring for future generations. Dentists care for other people's teeth. Laborers build roads for people to drive on.
+
+Even engaging in personal hobbies that require significant effort is a form of work, because it's a form of caring for oneself. For example, writing this journal is work. It's not a job and I don't get paid, but it does require significant time and effort. It's a form of self-care because it allows me to clarify my thoughts and it cares for others because I put out good ideas that don't get talked about enough. Motherhood is another example of legitimate work that isn't a job and doesn't pay.
+
+What the Puritan work ethic says is you're worthless if you don't work (in the sense of a job) and it doesn't matter if you don't like the work. But working a bullshit, low wage, alienating[7] job you hate isn't caring for yourself and others. Contrary to what the Puritan work ethic says, your suffering is relevant because suffering too much or causing others to suffer (telemarketing) defeats the very purpose of work.
+
+Ultimately the Puritan work ethic is an attempt to divorce the purpose of labor from labor. The idea that you shouldn't enjoy work or else it isn't really work is completely backwards. If work causes you to suffer excessively, then that subtracts from the purpose of the work. If you enjoy your work, that adds to its purpose. The idea that doing work you hate is more noble or honorable is therefore totally incoherent. Work gets its value from caring and reducing suffering, not causing it.
+
+So one of the most important questions we should ask ourselves about work is how can we increase caring and decrease suffering? There are several right answers to that question, but I'll just offer two to get started.
+
+# Democracy in the Workplace
+In general, the more agency and personal freedom people have, the more their wellbeing increases. This is reflected in the desire for a democratic form of government. The idea that government is there to benefit the people, that everyone gets exactly one vote, no matter the color of their skin, sexual orientation, wealth, caste, or popularity. Democracy has become sacrosanct.
+
+Now let's think about work again. In every job I've had except for one, I've had a boss telling me what to do. The boss gave orders, and I followed them until I was off the clock. I had zero agency and zero freedom. And as we all know, that's the most common experience for workers.
+
+It's strange that when it comes to work, the expectation of democracy vanishes. Workplaces are essentially dictatorships where you do what the boss says for as long as the boss says to do it. If you decline, you're fired. Since non-rich people need jobs to survive, declining to follow orders isn't an option. The choice is between doing whatever you're told and dieing.
+
+And the mere fact that one can (in theory) change jobs does nothing to alleviate the problem. Almost all workplaces are structured in undemocratic command hierarchies where workers have no autonomy or ownership. The lack of agency is unescapable.
+
+When people think their government is behaving undemocratically, they risk their lives on an insurrection. When the workplace they go to for eight hours a day five days a week is utterly undemocratic, that's just the way things are.
+
+But what if we can have democratic workplaces[8]? If democracy should govern the state, then why shouldn't it also govern economic enterprises?
+
+As it turns out, highly democratic workplaces do exist and they work. Democratically governed workplaces are shown to be more successful than simple command hierarchies. Workers have higher motivation and trust in each other. They have increased job satisfaction, better health, improved perceptions of society, and lower turnover.
+
+I'm not just talking about unions where workers have more collective bargaining power. I'm talking about worker cooperatives[9], where workers own and self-manage the company. Workplace democracy is an idea which I think doesn't get talked about nearly enough, at least not here in Burgerland, but it would be a great way of promoting and possibly even exporting democracy.
+
+It really diminishes the benefits of living in a democracy when you're being dictated to for so much of your waking hours anyways. So I think we ought to explore all possibilities and really get creative to make it so workers enjoy the work they're doing and the work they're doing is necessary and beneficial to others.
+
+# Workplace Phoniness
+Another way workplaces can change for the better is to eliminate the culture of phoniness. I believe the degree to which this happens partly depends on culture, but I find it abhorrent wherever I encounter it.
+
+When I worked a service job, I was forced to complete this stupid online course instructing me on how to be "pleasant" when interacting with customers. It basically taught me how to be fake. How to conceal my negative emotions while interacting with the public, how to say the right words, how to pretend I'm just some always-happy service person that's thrilled to solve other people's problems. It was demeaning.
+
+I now consider what I underwent to be a form of psychological violence. Forcing employees to mask their authentic selves with a pleasant but phony personality for a prolonged period of time is abusive. Either hire an employee or don't, but don't force them to become this fake phony person just to please the customer. It's wrong and customers can see right through it anyways.
+
+When I check out at Walmart and every cashier tells me to have a nice day, it loses its meaning because I know I'm not having a real interaction with the person. They're just saying what they have to say to avoid getting fired.
+
+And please don't force employees to thank me for calling either. I know that's part of the script too and I know the thanks isn't genuine and they probably secretly want to get me off the phone as soon as possible.
+
+Customer service skills are important and should be taught, but please don't force employees to be fake happy and non-genuine.
+
+# Summary
+In summary, I think there's lots of bullshit jobs that could be eliminated, but trying to quantify exactly how many is quite difficult. We need a solution for wealth redistribution soon so people don't have to work these bullshit jobs just to survive. I think the problem of intentionally prolonged work can also be reduced or even eliminated.
+
+Automation is already here and it's reducing the number of useful jobs. I don't see any point in reverting to Luddism. For one, the economy can adapt. Two, humans can find meaning outside work. Three, the knowledge that machines can automate one's job might be worse than the job being automated. Something like UBI will be necessary to ensure people can get the necessities without a job.
+
+The idea that suffering gives work meaning is backwards. Ultimately all meaningful work is about caring for oneself and others. Suffering should be kept at a minimum.
+
+And finally, in order to make work more enjoyable for everyone, we should implement democracy in the workplace so workers have more freedom and we should never force employees to be fake just to please customers.
+
+Thanks again for reading and let me know your thoughts. :)
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Bullshit Jobs](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs)
+[2: David Graeber](https://wikiless.org/wiki/David_Graeber)
+[3: Universal Basic Income](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income)
+[4: Bullshit Jobs](https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs/)
+[5: Fractal Wrongness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness)
+[6: Protestant Work Ethic](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic)
+[7: Marx's Theory of Alienation](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation)
+[8: Workplace Democracy](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy)
+[9: Worker Cooperative](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative)
diff --git a/content/post/avoid-using-cryptocurrency.md b/content/post/avoid-using-cryptocurrency.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6507e34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/avoid-using-cryptocurrency.md
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+title: "Avoid Using Cryptocurrency"
+date: 2021-07-18T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Cryptocurrency's Unreasonably High Energy Consumption
+The criticisms I'm about to levy do not apply to every cryptocurrency. I'm only criticising the cryptocurrencies that involve high energy usage per transaction. Proof of X based cryptocurrencies where X is work, storage or some other energy-intensive process fall into this category. But I'm mostly referring to proof of work. I'm excluding proof of stake cryptocurrencies because proof of stake does not cause considerable energy usage per transaction. I'm still including non-blockchain cryptocurrencies that employ proof of work and use a high amount of energy per transaction. From now on I'll use the word "cryptocurrency" to mean only those in that high energy consumption group without further explanation.
+
+What counts as "high energy consumption" is up for debate. But even in conservative estimates, the cryptocurrency with the highest market cap, Bitcoin, still uses enough energy per transaction to power the average American home for 1 to 2 months. At a few transactions per second, that adds up to more energy usage than some countries. We can argue all day long about what counts as "high energy usage", but Bitcoin is clearly far past that point.
+
+There's no question that it's unsustainable. It's an unreasonable amount of energy for a single transaction. Nobody should be apologizing for Bitcoin. Ethereum, Dogecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Monero and many other cryptos also have completely atrocious energy usage. At least, they would if they were more popular. Ethereum seems to be moving to proof of stake though. I expect it to be off this high-energy list within a year. But for now, it remains on the shitlist.
+
+# Excuses For High Energy Consumption
+Too often I see crypto enthusiasts making excuses for crypto's extreme energy usage. So let's consider the two most common excuses I hear.
+
+## The Energy Isn't Wasted
+By far the most common retort I hear to complaints about proof of work's energy usage is that the energy isn't wasted. This retort is so poorly thought out that it saddens me to hear it. In the trivial sense that proof of work accomplishes something, the energy isn't wasted. But it's extremely inefficient compared to proof of stake and some non-blockchain based cryptos. There just isn't a good reason not to use proof of stake when the energy consumption difference is so enormous.
+
+It feels almost patronizing that I have to explain this, but the energy is obviously wasted because the same job can be accomplished using several orders of magnitude less energy. It's irrelevant that proof of work for instance secures the blockchain when there are much greener ways to have the same security. Here's an analogy: Imagine time were the precious resource rather than energy. Proof of work would be akin to cutting the lawn with scissors versus a lawn mower. No one in their right mind would say the scissors are fine because they eventually get the job done. In the same way, no one in their right mind should be saying energy is well spent on proof of work blockchains.
+
+The scissors analogy isn't even that good because in reality proof of work is probably still orders of magnitude more wasteful energy-wise than cutting the average lawn with scissors would be time-wise. Don't quote me on that though. Anyhow, I think I've made my point about proof of work and other resource heavy mechanisms for securing the blockchain wasting energy.
+
+## Centralized Banking Uses More Energy
+Crypto enthusiasts also like to point out that the centralized banking system uses more energy. It takes a lot of energy to operate the banks' servers, move cash from one place to another, operate ATMs and process and verify the transactions. Therefore cryptocurrency isn't really worse than standard centralized banking everybody already uses, right?
+
+I see why crypto enthusiasts want to compare cryptocurrency to centralized banking in terms of energy consumption. Their head is in the right place. It makes sense because cryptocurrency is supposed to replace centralized banking or at least serve as a legitimate alternative to dealing with the banksters.
+
+### Unfair Comparison
+The problem, again, is that this is a very poorly thought out argument. For starters, centralized banking and cryptocurrency isn't a fair comparison to make. They serve completely different functions in society right now. Centralized banking can offer loans, insure your savings in case of a breach, generate interest and a dozen other vital services cryptocurrencies can't or don't offer. On top of that, fiat currency fulfills 2 functions of money that crypto doesn't:
+
+1. It's a good medium of exchange because transaction costs don't have out of control fees and transactions happen relatively quickly.
+2. It's also a good store of value because the price doesn't have massive fluctuations.
+
+For those reasons it's not exactly fair to compare the energy consumption of cryptocurrency with centralized banking. They fulfill completely different roles in society. Just to demonstrate how ill thought out this excuse is for cryptocurrency's energy consumption, let's ignore the different societal roles of crypto and centralized banking. Even if it did made sense to compare the two, without hesitation I can tell you that centralized banking uses less energy per transaction than some of the most popular cryptocurrencies.
+
+### Irrelevant Statistics
+I've seen several pro-cryptocurrency articles online embarrassingly promoting that cryptocurrency uses less total energy than centralized banking, making cryptocurrency the greener "alternative". Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. What matters is the energy consumption per transaction, not total energy consumption. I can tell you without even checking the numbers that centralized banking does not require the energy of the average American home over a whole month just to perform 1 transaction.
+
+In conclusion, the argument that crypto is greener than centralized banking is fractally wrong.
+
+# Should You Use Cryptocurrency?
+So far we've established that cryptocurrencies have a real energy consumption problem, that it's not greener than centralized banking and that the technology to fix it (proof of stake) is well-established. The question is then, until such time as the problem is fixed, should you use crypto?
+
+## Low Energy Cryptocurrencies
+Of course it's fine to use cryptocurrencies that don't have the energy problem. All proof of stake cryptos should be fine. I myself use Session, a messaging application based on Lokinet nodes incentivized by Oxen, a proof of stake cryptocurrency. I see no energy-related ethical problem with Oxen or the dozens of other proof of stake cryptos out there.
+
+## High Energy Cryptocurrencies
+For cryptocurrencies that have the high energy consumption, it's a different story. I can already hear some of you objecting "But I just use the currency! I don't do any mining. How am I doing any harm?". The issue there is you're still encouraging mining by participation. When you use cryptocurrency, you validate its usefulness which gives it value which incentivizes more miners to mine for block rewards. This makes you part of the problem.
+
+## There's No Good Alternative to Cryptocurrency
+With that said, cryptocurrency is the only way to transact online in a truly anonymous, private, peer to peer way. The centralized payment processors don't even come close to the privacy and freedom cryptocurrencies offer. Are you expected to just stop caring about your financial privacy and freedom in favor of energy efficiency?
+
+You could try using only proof of stake cryptos. But, for the most part, those aren't accepted as payment and how are you going to acquire them to begin with? Most of the time you have to exchange a high energy consumption coin like Bitcoin for a low energy consumption crypto which defeats the purpose. Besides, proof of stake cryptos aren't even private. So there's already one major benefit of using crypto gone. The market for green cryptos just isn't there yet.
+
+## Freedom and Privacy Versus Energy Consumption
+We seem to have hit a "hard conflict" as I would put it in my post about Integrated Activism[1]. I recommend reading that as it may help understand where I'm coming from in this post. Anyway, I'll borrow a quote from that post here:
+
+> "...you are going to run into situations where two or more social issues are in a "hard conflict" and there's no easy way to respect them all. What you have to do in situations like those is to figure out your priorities." - Me, Integrated Activism
+
+In this case, the social issues at conflict are privacy and freedom versus energy consumption. You can either keep your economic privacy and freedom or not encourage a system which wastes obscene amounts of energy. But you can't currently do both. Perhaps once Ethereum, the 2nd most popular cryptocurrency, transitions to proof of stake it will become more feasible to do both, minus the privacy of course. For reference, I talk about this exact solution explicitly in Integrated Activism under the "Clever Solutions" header. However, at present, it's not possible to maintain both freedom and privacy and energy efficiency. So I return to the same question I posed earlier. What should you do in the face of this conflict?
+
+# Don't Use Cryptocurrency
+Well unless you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years, you know that climate change poses an existential threat to life on earth. In order to avoid climate mayhem, we need to cut down our energy consumption. Avoiding using cryptocurrency is a good way to do that. So I recommend you avoid using cryptocurrency wherever possible. But I'd like to break it down a bit more than that.
+
+## Small Website Owners
+Small website owners specifically should not accept cryptocurrency donations from high energy consumption currencies. This is why I've removed my crypto donation addresses from the about page[2] of this blog. I feel that I can no longer justify including them on my blog with the extreme energy consumption they use. Including them in the first place was a mistake. Small website owners like myself are also unlikely to receive sizeable donations. So, in practice, it doesn't make much of a difference choosing not to accept crypto donations.
+
+I still accept donations via Liberapay. I will start accepting crypto donations again only for Ethereum after it switches fully to proof of stake. It'll be popular enough that someone looking at my website might have Ethereum they want to donate and it'll be fully independent of extreme energy consumption coins. Therefore I see no reason not to accept it in the future.
+
+I encourage all small website owners to follow in my footsteps and reject cryptocurrency donations until Ethereum switches to proof of stake, and then accept only Ethereum until more popular coins make the switch. I expect Ethereum to make the transition within a year, so I shouldn't be without crypto donation options for long. It's not worth it to list all the other relatively unknown proof of stake cryptocurrencies out there on my blog. I probably won't get any donations from them anyways and it's extra work.
+
+### Landchad.net
+I am disappointed to see Luke Smith's landchad website[3] promoting cryptocurrency to small website owners. I support the goals of the website in getting more people an online existence independent of social media, but Luke should at least mention the caveat of extreme energy consumption in the crypto article. Either that or outright take down the posts about accepting cryptocurrency. I plan on contacting him about this after publishing this post.
+
+As I mentioned in my post on Integrated Activism, I have observed the cryptocurrency space largely ignoring the effects that crypto has on energy consumption, instead focusing only on privacy and freedom. In that post, I referred to this myopic focus to the detriment of other important social causes as "tunnel vision". Landchat.net is also guilty of this. It makes no mention of energy consumption at all. The crypto community needs to do better for environmentalists.
+
+## Other Use Cases
+But what if you don't run a small website? What about a large website that regularly receives crypto donations? What about other internet services? What if you heavily rely on crypto donations? What if you pay for online services using crypto?
+
+I recognize and respect the argument that there's no other alternative to crypto, therefore it's socially important for freedom and privacy. I also understand we're in the middle of an existential crisis that is climate change and if we don't become more conscious about our energy use, freedom and privacy won't matter because there won't be humans to possess those rights. Honestly, where to draw the line is not quite clear for me.
+
+Imagine you were to live in an increasingly repressive country where protests were being shut down and funding to activist groups blocked. Cryptocurrency might be important for environmentalists getting organized. I'm not here to tell you not to use cryptocurrency under any circumstance. But if you're just accepting donations for a small online blog or making unnecessary online purchases with crypto, you should stop. In the general case, crypto should only used when there's absolutely no other option, if at all. That is, if you care about a livable planet.
+
+# Final Words
+So that's the best argument I have for why you should avoid using cryptocurrency as much as possible, at least until greener alternatives make themselves available. I get what it's like to be excited for the technology. I'm extremely excited for what's to come. I see a lot of promise in its future and I'm cautiously optimistic. We should consider all relevant social concerns, not just freedom and privacy. And we shouldn't ignore the environmental problem just because the technology is still developing.
+
+The very first thing environmentalists bring up when I mention cryptocurrency is the energy consumption. They are much happier to criticize it than crypto enthusiasts which makes sense. Most of them don't have a stake in it at all. They don't use it for anything. As someone who cares deeply about the environment and economic privacy and freedom, I believe I've struck a reasonable compromise by recommending avoiding cryptocurrency as much as possible right now. As much as I love crypto, I can't deny that it's having a disastrous environmental impact. Us crypto geeks need to think more carefully about how it affects the environment rather than recklessly promoting it everywhere we can.
+
+The future is not bleak though. The 2nd most popular cryptocurrency plans on switching to proof of stake soon. The technologies are improving all the time. I hope more cryptos will follow Ethereum's example switching to proof of stake, especially Monero. The technology is there. Just wait a little longer until there are more energy efficient cryptocurrencies in popular usage. Then you can start participating and feel good for being environmentally conscious too.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Integrated Activism](../../../../2021/06/30/integrated-activism/)
+[2: About page](../../../../about/)
+[3: landchad.net](https://landchad.net/crypto.html)
diff --git a/content/post/avoiding-automobile-surveillance.md b/content/post/avoiding-automobile-surveillance.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a17d2ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/avoiding-automobile-surveillance.md
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+---
+title: "Avoiding Automobile Surveillance"
+date: 2020-12-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Internetification of Everything
+Over the past few decades, there has been increasing "internetification" of everything. The Internet of Stings[1] has infected refrigerators, watches, televisions, and even light bulbs. As it turns out, shoehorning internet connected computer chips with proprietary[2] code into everything increases their attack surface making society more vulnerable to hacking groups[3], foreign governments and Big Brother.
+
+Automobiles are no exception. They've also seen increased internetification. My own personal opinion is cars don't need wireless enabled computer chips, period. And I'm not the[4] only person[5] to think connected cars seem like a bad idea.
+
+For this post, I want to focus on avoiding mass surveillance of automobiles. None of the recommendations in this post apply to work vehicles[6] or car rentals since you don't own those. This guide is only for your own personal vehicle.
+
+# Don't Buy a Connected Car
+My first piece of advice is don't buy a connected car. By connected car I mean a car with wireless capability other than radio. Buy an old car instead. Old cars predate the connected features of new cars. Ideally buy a car that doesn't support wifi, bluetooth or cellular connections. If it has a touchscreen it's probably too new. If you need navigation, you can buy a cheap car phone mount and use your phone.
+
+If you already own a connected car, the best advice I can give is to trade it in for an old car. Until then read the owner's manual and find out how to deactivate as many of the connected features as you can. Never pair your phone with your car. Disable bluetooth and cellular connections on the car if possible.
+
+# Eliminate Remote Diagnostics
+Unfortunately even some old vehicles have remote diagnostics systems that collect and transmit vehicle sensor data wirelessly to the dealership, insurer, manufacturer or thugs[7]. I'll cover these by category starting with the dealership.
+
+## Dealership Tracking
+Automotive dealerships have GPS tracking devices[8] attached to cars primarily to prevent theft. When you buy a car, assume it has one and make the dealership agree to remove it as part of the terms of purchase before you buy the vehicle. Once you've bought the car from the dealership, there's no reason they need GPS tracking on it.
+
+The exception of course is if you bought the car on a loan. Then either the dealership or the lender may require the GPS tracker on the car until it's fully paid for. In that case you can remove the GPS tracker yourself or have it removed after the car is fully paid for.
+
+## Insurer Tracking
+Car insurers promote remote telematics devices[9] to policyholders in exchange for lower rates. They use the OBD interface[10] in your vehicle to send real-time data to the insurer. Empowering Big Brother in exchange for cheaper rates isn't worth it. Don't let your insurer install tracking devices in your car. If your insurer requires them, find a new insurer.
+
+## Manufacturer Tracking
+General Motors includes OnStar[11] in its vehicles. OnStar is a telematics device capable of not only remotely surveilling GM vehicles, but also listening to live audio inside the car and remotely shutting the car down. Even if you don't have a subscription, OnStar can still track your GM vehicle. In fact they tracked vehicles that weren't even subscribed to OnStar services until they reversed the decision[12] due to public outcry from privacy advocates. Luckily there are plenty of guides online for how to remove OnStar[13] so they can't possibly track you.
+
+SiriusXM also collects telematics. Unlike OnStar, there's no way to remove it I'm aware of. You can cancel your subscription, but SiriusXM can still collect telematics. The only solution is don't buy a vehicle that has telematics providers you can't remove.
+
+## Thug Tracking
+Big Brother can also demand telematics information about your car from any of the above categories. This isn't theoretical. It happened with SiriusXM[14]. Thugs have used OnStar[15] several times to remotely shutdown car engines. ATX technologies[16] was forced to provide thugs with a live audio feed from inside a car.
+
+Thugs are still allowed to put trackers on cars with a warrant. I'm not going to tell you how to spot covert thug GPS trackers. That's avoiding targeted surveillance which is out of the scope of this post. This post is only about avoiding mass automobile surveillance.
+
+# Safeguarding Onboard Diagnostics
+Onboard diagnostics systems (OBD) in vehicles were introduced in the 1980s. The USA, EU and other countries have mandated OBD-II[17] and EOBD[18] protocols for all vehicles sold.
+
+## Emissions Testing
+If you have a gasoline engine and you're in the United States, OBD data is pulled from your vehicle when you get mandatory emissions testing unless you get standard tailpipe emissions testing done. To find out if you can get only standard tailpipe emissions testing, you'll have to call and ask local emissions testing sites and check state regulations.
+
+If the emissions testing site uses proprietary OBD scanning software, then it's possible that your data gets collected and sold to insurance companies by the OBD software vendor. If the testing site uses a handheld OBD scanner, it's still possible that the data is eventually pulled off and sold if the handheld scanner connects to vendor software on an internet connected computer. The OBD-II interface has Mode $09 which retrieves uniquely identifiable information like the VIN number[19]. So if the OBD data does get sold, the data brokers know exactly whose vehicle it belongs to.
+
+I've never heard of OBD data being involved in a data breach before. I don't have any information about what software is used by emissions testing sites. I'm just speculating. The only reason I have for thinking OBD data collection does happen at emissions testing sites through software vendors is because it can and it's profitable. Even if my speculation is true, you still have to get emissions testing done. I only mention emissions testing data collection for completeness and awareness, not because you can do anything besides political activism to prevent it.
+
+## Auto Repair Shops
+When you take your car to a repair shop, one of the first things they're going to do is check the OBD-II interface for error codes. It's the same issue as before with emissions testing. The uniquely identifiable OBD data is exposed to potentially proprietary programs used by the car repair shop.
+
+The difference is you don't have much choice in emissions testing. When it comes to auto repair, you have some choice. There are free software diagnostic tools for OBD-II[20] that don't collect and sell your data. You'll need an adapter[21] supported by your vehicle to use them. It's up to you to make sure the adapter will work before you buy it. If you want to repair your vehicle yourself, then that's the end of it.
+
+If you need the auto repair shop to repair your vehicle, you can relay the results retrieved from your free software tools to them while requesting they don't use their own proprietary OBD scanning tools.
+
+# Networked Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
+This section only applies to fully electric and hybrid cars. I've already made a post about networked EV charging stations[22]. Just so this post is self-contained, I'll reiterate:
+
+> There are two types of EV charging stations: networked and non-networked. The networked ones require you to sign up on the web with your real name, credit card information, address, and car make and model. You have to agree to the terms of service and privacy policy. After signing up, you receive a swipe card in the mail. Because you have to swipe an ID card to use networked charging stations, the network (Chargepoint) knows who you are, where you charged your car, when, and for how long. Non-networked charging stations don’t require you to use an ID card, so they can’t collect any personalized data on you.
+
+Don't use the networked charging stations. Use the non-networked ones or just use your own charging cable instead.
+
+# Automatic License Plate Readers
+Automatic license plate readers or ALPRs[23] are cameras that capture all license plate numbers that pass by. There isn't anything you can do about these besides political activism against them. Purposely obscuring your plates from these cameras might be illegal or cause you to get tickets. Even if there's nothing you can do, I still think it's important to be aware of ALPRs.
+
+# Consumer Surveillance
+It may be possible to infer where you drive based on consumer surveillance alone. As a final piece of advice to further improve your vehicle's location privacy, follow the tips in my post on avoiding consumer surveillance[24].
+
+# Political Action
+When I make posts on how to avoid surveillance, what I'm trying to do is build resistance to tools of mass surveillance. At the end of the day there needs to be both technological and political changes to protect drivers' data. I offer temporary workarounds for avoiding surveillance until the dangerous trend of increased surveillance reverses itself. Society needs to start being proactive rather than reactive to corporate and government surveillance. I don't know when or how or if the trend of increased surveillance will be reversed, but I'll continue writing about ways to resist surveillance until I no longer need to.
+
+At some point resisting mass surveillance becomes impractical. I understand my advice isn't always easy to follow. Choosing privacy can get expensive and time-consuming. And it's already hard enough to get people to use anti-surveillance tools that are easy to use, let alone follow a guide like this that requires lots of effort. Part of the function of these posts is to show the ridiculous lengths one must go for privacy in today's world. You don't have to follow all the steps in this guide. My practical advice is just do what you can. Remember, if all you do is cancel your insurance tracking, that's a win for privacy and a blow to Big Brother.
+
+If you have any more details or suggestions that I missed send me an email[25]. If you want to help support my site send a donation[26]. I hope you found this post valuable.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://stallman.org/articles/internet-of-stings.pdf](https://stallman.org/articles/internet-of-stings.pdf)
+[2: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/)
+[3: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/jeep-hack-chrysler-recalls-1-4m-vehicles-bug-fix/](https://www.wired.com/2015/07/jeep-hack-chrysler-recalls-1-4m-vehicles-bug-fix/)
+[4: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-apples-carplay-a-kille_b_4905981](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-apples-carplay-a-kille_b_4905981)
+[5: https://blog.1871.com/blogs/howard-a-tullman/tullman-why-smart-cars-are-stupid-2](https://blog.1871.com/blogs/howard-a-tullman/tullman-why-smart-cars-are-stupid-2)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#Vehicle_telematics](https://wikiless.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#Vehicle_telematics)
+[7: https://stallman.org/glossary.html#thug](https://stallman.org/glossary.html#thug)
+[8: https://www.spireon.com/gps-auto-tracking/](https://www.spireon.com/gps-auto-tracking/)
+[9: https://www.carzing.com/blog/car-insurance/car-insurance-tracking-devices/](https://www.carzing.com/blog/car-insurance/car-insurance-tracking-devices/)
+[10: https://wikiless.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics](https://wikiless.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics)
+[11: https://wikiless.org/wiki/OnStar#Use_as_surveillance_device](https://wikiless.org/wiki/OnStar#Use_as_surveillance_device)
+[12: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/09/gm-reverses-decision-on-onstar-privacy-policy/index.htm](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/09/gm-reverses-decision-on-onstar-privacy-policy/index.htm)
+[13: https://www.wikihow.com/Deactivate-OnStar](https://www.wikihow.com/Deactivate-OnStar)
+[14: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3295672-SiriusXM-Satellite-Radio-Tech-Turned-Into.html](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3295672-SiriusXM-Satellite-Radio-Tech-Turned-Into.html)
+[15: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3295668-Coleman-Motion-to-Suppress-Denied.html](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3295668-Coleman-Motion-to-Suppress-Denied.html)
+[16: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3295666-ATX-Technologies-vs-US-Monitoring-of-in-Car.html](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3295666-ATX-Technologies-vs-US-Monitoring-of-in-Car.html)
+[17: https://wikiless.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#OBD-II](https://wikiless.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#OBD-II)
+[18: https://wikiless.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#EOBD](https://wikiless.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#EOBD)
+[19: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Vehicle_identification_number](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Vehicle_identification_number)
+[20: https://github.com/fenugrec/freediag](https://github.com/fenugrec/freediag)
+[21: http://freediag.sourceforge.net/Supported-Interfaces.html#supported](http://freediag.sourceforge.net/Supported-Interfaces.html#supported)
+[22: /2020/09/09/networked-ev-charging-stations](../../../../2020/09/09/networked-ev-charging-stations/)
+[23: https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr](https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr)
+[24: /2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance](../../../../2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance/)
+[25: mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch](mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch)
+[26: /about](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/avoiding-consumer-surveillance.md b/content/post/avoiding-consumer-surveillance.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5759166
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/avoiding-consumer-surveillance.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+title: "Avoiding Consumer Surveillance"
+date: 2020-11-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Age of Surveillance
+We live in the age of surveillance capitalism[1]. Intimate data about us is collected, bought and sold for profit and social control. Intermediaries like banks, payment companies, credit card companies and governments have unprecedented access into our private lives through our purchases. This level of surveillance is tyrannical. Mass surveillance is dangerous to the health of democracy and must be stopped[2]. Big Brother should not know what we buy. In this post, I'm going to talk about how we avoid consumer surveillance. In a future post, I'll talk about anonymous online shopping and some promising software projects that could be a more permanent remedy to consumer surveillance. Ultimately, there is going to have to be political action to curtail surveillance, not just new technology. But until there is increased awareness of mass surveillance and real political action against it occurs, all we can hope to do is avoid the surveillance. So here's how you do that.
+
+# Always Pay Cash
+This is the golden rule. To avoid surveillance, you should always pay in cash. Never use a credit or debit card. Never use Google Pay, Apple Pay, Cash App, Samsung Pay, Paypal, Circle Pay, Venmo, Square Cash, Zelle, Facebook Messenger, or any other payment app. Reject online shopping unless you can remain anonymous. Don't shop at Amazon, Ebay, or other online marketplaces that require you to identify yourself. Is always paying in cash inconvenient? Maybe. That depends on how reliant you are on online shopping. Is it possible? Definitely. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Paying cash even once helps resist surveillance. Even though Big Brother would love to see a cashless society[3] where all your purchases are fully transparent, we aren't in that dystopian nightmare yet. If a merchant refuses to accept your cash, then find another merchant that will take cash. You'll be anonymous and you'll create economic pressure against a cashless society. If the story ended there, I'd just end this post now. But it's not that easy.
+
+# Avoid Disloyalty Programs
+Paying in cash is necessary but not sufficient[4] for anonymous purchases. Just because you pay in cash doesn't mean you're anonymous. Retailers have come up with clever ways to trick you into deanonymizing yourself even when you pay cash. They're called loyalty programs[5]. Here's how their dirty scheme works: An "operator" asks you if you're already signed up for the rewards program. If you say no, they ask you if you want to sign up. If you agree, then they begin asking you for personally identifying information about yourself like your name, address, and phone number. Things they have absolutely no business knowing that are irrelevant to the transaction you're performing. Once you cough up your information, they give you a rewards card[6], otherwise known as a points card, advantage card, or club card. On all your future purchases, you use your loyalty card and earn "points" which gives you future discounts and deals. The catch is they link all your purchases with your identity and then sell that data to data brokers. I call them disloyalty cards because you're being disloyal to your fellow citizens by tacitly approving of consumer surveillance. Disloyalty programs are only loyal to Big Brother. Every time you use them, you make it harder for other people to reject them. You're voting for surveillance with your money. Others that don't submit themselves to the unjust surveillance may have to pay fees of up to 10% for not being signed up. See Sam's Club[7].
+
+Even if the disloyalty program doesn't require you to give any personal information to sign up, it can still be used to link[8] your purchases together. When your "buyer profile" gets sold and combined with other data, it's trivially easy to deanonymize your purchases. Let's say you sign up for a disloyalty card that doesn't require giving your personal information. The items purchased and time and date of purchase are all linked on your disloyalty card. Useless information on its own. But then the supermarket you buy from sells your "buyer profile" to Goolag[9] who compares your location history from your phone to the disloyalty card data. The supermarket has 3,000 customers that use a disloyalty card, but only 1 customer has a location history that matches the times and dates that the card made purchases. That's you. And just like that, your purchases are deanonymized. But you're clever. You turn your phone off before you go to the store. Doesn't matter. Goolag correlates the time at which your phone turns off with the time of the purchases. You're deanonymized again. Let's say you don't even have a mobile phone. Doesn't matter. You drive a car to the supermarket. A private automatic license plate reader[10] company records your license plate number as you drive to the store and sells that data to Goolag. Goolag correlates your driving times with the card purchase times and now all your purchases going back years are deanonymized. So you walk to the supermarket with your disloyalty card instead of driving. That won't help you either. AI-powered facial recognition cameras[11] all over the supermarket identify you and the times you're there. The company that makes those cameras sells that data to Goolag. Goolag correlates the times again and your purchases are deanonymized. So you go to a different supermarket with a different disloyalty card. You don't have a phone. You walk there. There are no surveillance cameras inside. How could you possibly be deanonymized now? Your bandwidth usage on your home network is low while you're gone at the store. Your ISP sells this data to Goolag who correlates it with your card and you're deanonymized again.
+
+Just pay a little extra to avoid the disloyalty card. Refusing disloyalty cards also protects the anonymity of others. If you use a disloyalty card, then you might shrink the anonymity set[12] of others not using a card. Whether others have consumer privacy is not your choice to make. You won't get the discount but so what? At least everything you buy won't be in a searchable database.
+
+# Don't Identify Yourself to Merchants
+Some places of business won't offer you a disloyalty card, but they will ask for personally identifiable information[13] (PII) like your name and phone number. The crux of the problem with consumer surveillance is identifying yourself to the merchant. Never identify yourself. Yes, disloyalty cards identify you. All payment methods besides cash identify you. But also giving any information about yourself that gets put into a computer system identifies you. If the merchant demands you identify yourself during a purchase where you would not otherwise be identified, then don't do it.
+
+However, it makes more sense to use a credit or debit card for airline tickets and car rentals because they demand ID anyway. I would still recommend paying cash that way your bank and credit card company don't automatically see that you rented a car, the make and model, where and when you rented it and how much it costed. Sure you're already identifying yourself to the rental company. Your purchase is already being recorded in a database, but you can still minimize the number of databases it's stored in by paying cash. At least all your identified purchases won't be in a single centralized database that's easy to get at. They'll have to be aggregated by data brokers first. So I'm going to reiterate the golden rule: always pay cash.
+
+# Resisting Intrusive Surveillance
+Despite always paying cash and never explicitly identifying yourself, big retailers can still identify you through more intrusive means of surveillance. I've already hinted at this in talking about disloyalty programs.
+
+## Facial Recognition Technology
+Surveillance cameras combined with facial recognition technology can uniquely identify you and the items you buy. The best way to combat this is to find smaller stores that don't have surveillance cameras. It's also not a bad idea to let the store owner or management know you choose their store over big retailers because they offer more privacy. If that's not practical for you, then be sure to wear a mask in the big retailers and a hat that covers your face from overhead cameras. One of the few good things that has come from Covid-19 is that it's now socially acceptable to wear masks inside stores. Wearing a mask simultaneously makes you harder to identify by facial recognition technology and prevents the spread of coronavirus.
+
+There are other ways you can be deanonymized through video surveillance besides facial recognition, but there's not much you can do about them. For that reason, I'm not going to cover them. Just know that they exist and that they have to be addressed through political action, not personal choices.
+
+## Wifi Location Tracking
+The other way that big retailers have become more invasive is through wifi location tracking of your smartphone. Your phone emits wifi signals to determine which wireless networks are available nearby. The person operating the retailer's wifi network can use those signals to track your movements within the store. It's profitable to collect your movement data, so you should assume that retailers are doing it. Your phone also has a MAC address[14] which can uniquely identify you, especially if your phone doesn't randomize it. Other wireless protocols that you leave activated on your phone might also be able to be misused by the retailer to track your movements. To avoid location tracking altogether, you can fully power down your phone before you enter the store. If that isn't good enough for you, another option is placing your phone inside a faraday bag[15]. Be sure to test it out before you use it though.
+
+# Anonymous Online Shopping
+We have grown accustomed to the luxury of having whatever we want show up at our doorstep with the click of a button. It's hard to say no when you've gotten so used to it. For those who really don't want to give up online shopping, I'm going to write a guide on how to anonymously buy and sell goods online. There's a few different methods for 100% anonymous online shopping. Some of them get very involved, so I'm going to save all the details for another post. See ya next time!
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism)
+[2: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cashless_society](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cashless_society)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Loyalty_program](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Loyalty_program)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cashback_reward_program](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cashback_reward_program)
+[7: https://www.samsclub.com/](https://www.samsclub.com/)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Linked_data](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Linked_data)
+[9: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag)
+[10: https://www.eff.org/pages/what-alpr](https://www.eff.org/pages/what-alpr)
+[11: https://www.eff.org/pages/face-recognition](https://www.eff.org/pages/face-recognition)
+[12: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Anonymity](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Anonymity)
+[13: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information)
+[14: https://wikiless.org/wiki/MAC_address](https://wikiless.org/wiki/MAC_address)
+[15: https://privacypros.io/faraday-bags/](https://privacypros.io/faraday-bags/)
diff --git a/content/post/back-up-your-data.md b/content/post/back-up-your-data.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..468f63f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/back-up-your-data.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+title: "Back Up Your Data"
+date: 2020-07-26T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Losing My Data
+My motivation for writing this post is I accidentally deleted another unpublished post I put a lot of effort into. It probably had 6+ hours of work invested in it at least. And now, it's gone forever. Perhaps it's best put into the 5 stages of grief. At first, I denied it. I was sure I had it copied to my clipboard, saved in my text editor cache or history, but it wasn't. After that, I got angry that I could have accidentally deleted something I put so much work into. How could I make such a dumb mistake? I skipped bargaining. I was sad about it for a while. Then I reached acceptance, and decided to write this post instead.
+
+This post is a public service announcement about backups inspired by the one that got lost. I've had my own backups for over 5 years, and never have I lost any data from those backups. So I have a little bit of experience making backups. The following advice is meant for individuals, not a corporate or business setting.
+
+# Why to Backup?
+Backups are important because hard drives fail and get corrupted, phones break and get lost, and physical media degrade. Backups can help protect your important data.
+
+# What to Backup?
+How do you know which data should go into your backups? Here are two quick rules of thumb:
+
+1. You would want the data back if you lost it or it corrupted (it's worth something to you)
+2. Using a backup would take less time than recreating the data yourself (it's worth the trouble to back up)
+
+I'll use this blog as an example. It uses the Hugo software to generate the site pages. I can install Hugo[1] on any platform with a few simple commands. The cost of retrieving Hugo is very low. If I lost it, I could recreate it by just reinstalling. I would get the latest version and it would work on whatever platform I happen to be using. If I made a standard backup, I would be stuck with the same version and the way it is packaged may not work across platforms. So, making a backup of Hugo would break rule #2 because it would take more time to recover it from a backup than just reinstalling it.
+
+I could almost say the same about the template I'm using. Except I've made modifications to it to not include Goo-lag analytics and other things. I have it backed up because #1 I would need it back if I lost it and #2 making those modifications again would take longer than just restoring the template from a backup. The same goes for my site content. Rewriting it all would be a huge effort. As I write more posts, the effort only increases. So, obviously, I back up my site content because it satisfies rules #1 and #2.
+
+For most people, data that satisfies both of these rules are going to be old home videos, vacation pictures, resumés, portfolios, financial records, contact lists and password manager files. Those are generally data that are valuable and either can't be recreated or would be cumbersome to recreate.
+
+# When to Backup?
+If you don't already have a backup, create one right now. Don't wait. Your data could become corrupted at any time. If you don't have copies of it elsewhere, then you're just waiting for the inevitable to happen. Your digital media (hard drive, flash drive, SD card, CD/DVD) will eventually fail and you will lose your important data.
+
+Once you have your data backed up for the first time, you will need to create a backup schedule. A backup schedule is how often you want to back up your data. It can be weekly, monthly, yearly, etc. It doesn't have to be at regular intervals, but that's good practice. This decision should be based on how frequently you acquire important data and how important the new data is. If you record your daughter or son's first steps on video, you will want to back that up the same day or week probably. If you don't acquire important data often, you may want a yearly backup schedule.
+
+In my case, I have a blog. So far, I have averaged 2-3 posts per month. I put a lot of thought into my posts. Since losing just 1 post motivated me to write all of this, I don't want to even think about losing 2-3 posts at once. Therefore I should, at minimum, perform monthly backups so that I never lose more than 2-3 posts. Redundant copies of my posts are stored on web servers and Zeronet, but those are only posts that I have deemed worthy to publish. The ones I haven't published don't have redundant copies, so I should still perform monthly backups. That's an example of how to think about a backup schedule. It will be different for everyone since everyone has different backup needs.
+
+# Where to Backup?
+Where you back up your data is crucial. This gets into what is widely known as the 3-2-1 rule of data backups. You need 3 copies of your data, 2 types of storage media, and 1 offsite copy. You must have an offsite copy in case of a disaster. If a fire breaks out in your home and you're gone, it will destroy your computer and your external drive. So it's no good to only have data stored locally. Yes, you need local copies, but you must have a remote copy as well.
+
+Also, having 2 copies of your data on the same media does not count as 2 copies. It counts as 1 copy. One computer science student I talked to in the past did not understand that RAID[2] is not a backup. One power spike and all your drives in your RAID system can fail simultaneously. It could get stolen. Do you trust yourself to never delete anything important by accident? You need physically separate media for backups, not just logically separate. This reduces the chance you will delete important data without catching the error first. Physically separate drives don't count if they are connected to the same system. For example, it doesn't matter if you have copies of your data on multiple cloud instances if those instances are through the same cloud provider. What if that cloud provider gets compromised and you lose both backups? So, use separate systems as well as separate drives.
+
+And finally, you need at least one air-gapped backup. If all your accounts and machines get compromised, you need a way to recover your data. Without that, your data could be stolen and held for ransom. To avoid this scenario, set up an offline backup in a different city, state, or country. The farther, the better. Your offline backup will probably be local since you can't access it remotely. Having a remote offline backup is inconvenient because it will be hard to maintain a frequent backup schedule. You could keep your offline backup as a micro SD card stashed between your phone and its case, or in your purse so it's always with you. This way, your offline backup, local backup, and remote backup are in 3 physically separate locations.
+
+# Who to Backup?
+It's important to know who is in control of the computer your backup is sitting on. If you use a cloud service provider to back up your data remotely, there are significant caveats. The caveats apply any time you are using hardware that is not under your control.
+
+For one, you have to trust the cloud service's security practices. If they get compromised, your data will be at risk. Are you willing to accept that risk? What if their database gets compromised? To eliminate this risk, you should always encrypt your data before uploading it. I'll get to this topic in the next section.
+
+Another risk is that the data is modified either intentionally or by error. Encrypting the data will not prevent it from being modified maliciously. For that, you need authenticated encryption. Also, you may be limited on monthly bandwidth or file storage capacity. If you store a lot of data, that could quickly become expensive.
+
+Using a cloud service provider, you can only access your data at their leasure. Hopefully their system has good uptime. This usually isn't a big problem. But they will also have full control over how you access your data. They might only allow you to access it over a web portal. You'll want to make sure they run a service you can access using only free software such as Nextcloud[3] or Etesync[4]. Preferably, they give you many ways to access it so you aren't locked in to a particular client program.
+
+# How to Backup?
+Now that I've covered the 5 W's (why, what, when, where, who), I'll cover the most important aspect of backups: How to do them. There is an endless list of software that can help with backups. One good rule is you should always use free software[5] for your backups. Never use proprietary software[6] for any part of the backup process. There's no reason for it and it will compromise your backup security.
+
+## Offsite Backup
+The first part of the backup process is to decide which data you want to store. Then, you should decide how you want to handle the remote backup. If you use a VPS, you control how you access your data, but all other caveats still apply. On a VPS, you can host your own service for the remote backup. As I said, there are a thousand ways to do this depending on your needs. If you like to keep it barebones, you can run a simple ssh server. If you are hosting a backup for more than just yourself, you may want to use an actual backup platform such as Nextcloud. There are several OS's that are built for the express purpose of backups from FreeNAS[7] to OpenMediaVault[8]. It doesn't really matter which you choose as long as it's meets your needs and runs free software.
+
+## Encryption
+Once you have your offsite service set up, it's time to perform the backup. The first thing you'll want to do before anything else is encrypt your data. For most people, you'll want to use Veracrypt[9]. It's user friendly and cross-platform. For a guide on how to use Veracrypt, follow the beginner's tutorial[10]. Other encryption programs require using the command-line, decrypting the data to disk before reading it, or only work on GNU/Linux. For those reasons I won't use them in this tutorial. However, if you feel comfortable using LUKS or GPG, go ahead. Just know the trade-offs.
+
+This next step is optional, but I recommend it. Veracrypt does not perform authenticated encryption. Your data is still encrypted, but it could be maliciously changed by an attacker and Veracrypt won't know about it. The best way to prevent this is with an HMAC. On GNU/Linux, you can do this with a single command as long as you have openssl installed. It doesn't seem as easy to perform on other platforms. For your HMAC password, you can reuse your Veracrypt volume password. Copy the resulting HMAC value, then save it to a text file next to your Veracrypt container file. It should also go into your backups. When you retrieve your backups later, you can perform the HMAC operation on the downloaded container file checking that the result matches the value you saved before. This provides you file integrity. At this point, I recommend deleting unencrypted copies of your data on disk since there's no good reason to have them around.
+
+## Finishing Up
+Now your data is finally ready to go into storage. Upload the Veracrypt container file along with the HMAC text file to your remote backup system. Then copy your data onto external media such as a USB flash drive, external hard drive, or SD card. This will serve as your offline backup. You can store your third backup on the same computer you use to access and modify the data, or you can choose a different one so it's not taking up space. That's up to you. Just be sure to have at least 3 copies of your data, one of them at a remote location and one of them air-gapped. You could write a script to do the backups and check the HMAC for you.
+
+Finally, you'll want to decide on your backup schedule. To add to your backup, you can simply mount your Veracrypt container and add more files. If you ever run out of space, you can always create a larger container and transfer all your data there. I hope you found this guide useful. I didn't go into as much detail as I could have about remote backup solutions, but I think I covered what needed to be covered.
+
+If you've made it this far, thank you for reading. If you find my ideas valuable, then please consider making a donation. Details are on my about page[11].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://gohugo.io/getting-started/installing/](https://gohugo.io/getting-started/installing/)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/RAID](https://wikiless.org/wiki/RAID)
+[3: https://nextcloud.com/](https://nextcloud.com/)
+[4: https://www.etesync.com/](https://www.etesync.com/)
+[5: https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software](https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software)
+[6: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/)
+[7: https://www.freenas.org/](https://www.freenas.org/)
+[8: https://www.openmediavault.org/](https://www.openmediavault.org/)
+[9: https://www.veracrypt.fr](https://www.veracrypt.fr)
+[10: https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Beginner%27s%20Tutorial.html](https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Beginner%27s%20Tutorial.html)
+[11: /about#donate](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/banning-facial-recognition-isnt-enough.md b/content/post/banning-facial-recognition-isnt-enough.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7a37732
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/banning-facial-recognition-isnt-enough.md
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+---
+title: "Banning Facial Recognition Isn't Enough"
+date: 2021-05-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Government Surveillance
+Today, I came across this campaign to ban facial recognition:
+
+[https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/](https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/)
+
+I agree on every point made on the website. Facial recognition systems are a violation of the human right to privacy. Facial recognition is prone to misuse by the government and the police. Facial recognition databases aren't audited for misuse. They chill free speech. So on and so forth. The accompanying bill H.R. 7235 should be passed.
+
+The hangup for me is that H.R. 7235 is very limited in scope. It focuses only on body-worn cameras used by police. I understand why sometimes bills have to be limited in scope to gain wide support and actually pass into law. So I'm not knocking the bill.
+
+# Corporate Surveillance
+There's also another related page on the same domain that focuses on corporate use of facial recognition technology, not government use:
+
+[https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/stores/](https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/stores/)
+
+Nowadays the empire of the megacorporations increasingly partners with the government and thanks to government mass surveillance programs, there isn't much difference in practice between corporate and government mass surveillance. Therefore it's equally if not more important to also ban corporations from using facial recognition on their customers.  
+
+The website also provides a store "scorecard" rating each large retailer based on their facial recognition policies. If you click "learn more" on the stores that "won't use" facial recognition, you can see that the only verification that stores aren't using facial recognition is a statement they made to Fight for the Future. Given their strong incentives to use facial recognition for consumer tracking and data collection, I wouldn't be surprised to find out most of the "won't use" stores are just lying. To verify stores' claims about facial recognition use beyond taking their word for it would require an audit which is probably impractical because the camera software is almost certainly proprietary.
+
+# False Dichotomy
+Both the government and the empire of the megacorporations present citizens with a false dichotomy: privacy versus safety. With government surveillance they say it's a balancing act between the right to privacy and public safety. Retailers try to do the same thing with the additional point of preventing theft. But this is a fallacy. Privacy and safety aren't opposed. My privacy is part of my safety. 
+
+The real motive for mass government surveillance such as law enforcement facial recognition databases is, boringly, increased government power and control: people controlling people. Suppression of minorities and dissent. In other words, business as usual.
+
+And the real motive for corporate mass surveillance is, boringly, profit. Corporations are psychopathic money-making machines and there's a very strong profit motive to conduct facial recognition surveillance of consumers. It provides them with data on consumers that has great monetary value.
+
+Those are the real reasons behind facial recognition. Don't believe the propoganda from the government, the corporate media or the empire of the megacorporations that facial recognition surveillance is about "safety". It isn't now and never has been.
+
+# Facial Recognition Will Become More Dangerous
+Stallman's Law says "Now that corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance or change in technology is an opening for them to further restrict or mistreat its users.". Facial recognition tech is no exception. It will only improve and the government and retailers will use its advances to further suppress dissent and generate profits by invading people's privacy.
+
+# Conclusion
+In summary:
+* Governments are using facial recognition tech to suppress dissent and gain power.
+* Retail companies are using facial recognition tech to track consumers for profit, that data inevitably ends up in government hands and companies have every reason to lie about using it.
+* Both governments and retail companies are lying about their true motives for using the technology.
+* As technology continues to improve, facial recognition will become more and more dangerous.
+* Continuous government auditing of corporate surveillance systems to prevent facial recognition tech being used by retailers would be impractical, costly and reactive, not proactive. 
+
+## A New Law is Needed
+In light of these facts, I propose an outright ban on video surveillance of large public and private spaces. It's not enough to make laws against facial recognition. Retailers have every reason to lie and do it anyway. Once the data exists, it's already too late to control how it's used. The only way to guarantee the data won't be misused is to prevent it from being collected in the first place. Specifically, by physically removing the infrastructure of surveillance.
+
+With this ban, not only retailers but no private commercial entity nor the government would be permitted to conduct mass video surveillance on citizens. No cameras everywhere in every aisle of every retail store, no spy planes that can see every citizen's movements from above. No surveillance cameras that watch students in schools and universities. No more persistent neighborhood surveillance with Ring doorbell cameras. No subjecting prisoners to constant surveillance while in prison. The new ban would require the cameras to be physically removed, not just deactivated.
+
+Now I'm not proposing a total ban on private and public use of surveillance cameras. There are many legitimate uses that I'm not going to cover in this post. The purpose of the law would be to protect the public against the subset of video surveillance that they can't easily avoid and therefore also facial recognition and other behavioral tracking techniques. As the retail facial recognition site rightly points out, some people can't afford to shop at a different store (especially with giant corporate monopolies). Consumers shouldn't have to give up their right to privacy to go buy food to eat. Nor should citizens have to give up their right to privacy in order to have a job.
+
+It's all about giving people the freedom to decide whether they consent to surveillance or not. In today's society that freedom is disappearing fast and we need it back. There didn't used to be cameras everywhere polluting the urban and suburban landscape and we don't need them now either. They're too big of a risk. You may see this as an extreme solution, but it's not extreme. It's only far-sighted.
+
+Looking at how facial recognition is already being used for targeted harassment of Uighurs in China, it's not hard to imagine ways in which improved facial recognition technology and other dangerous A.I. could worsen the situation. We need to preemptively stop things like this from happening by more strictly regulating what surveillance cameras are allowed to surveil. Private citizens may still record things in public. My objection isn't to that. It's to persistent, mass scale video surveillance of large public or private areas where people more or less have to be or would strongly desire to be (e.g. at a park or at work). 
+
+## The Free Market Can't Fix It
+The reason I'm suggesting government involvement is the free market can't solve the surveillance problem especially when consumers can't afford to shop elsewhere or they live too far. Not to mention free market incentives are what created the problem in the first place. Even if there weren't monopolies preventing competition (e.g. a private versus surveilled shop), that would do nothing to stop employee surveillance. You may be able to choose where you shop, but you can't just decide not to work. That's why there ought to be a generalized law limiting corporate and government ability to use surveillance cameras.
+
+## Dismantling Surveillance Infrastructure is the Best Solution
+Don't get me wrong. I think the bill for banning facial recognition is great, but facial recognition is only a single threat to privacy. What about gait analysis? What about automated behavioral analysis? Are we going to make a new law addressing each new technology that threatens privacy?
+
+See, the root of the problem is the network of surveillance cameras watching citizens 24/7. If it exists, it will be misused. Therefore, it must be dismantled. It's the most effective, cheapest, simplest solution that actually addresses the core of the privacy issue. Additionally, with the chilling effect caused by having cameras watch you everywhere you go removed, we would become a more free, and therefore safer society. So yeah. That's my case. As always, if you enjoyed this post, don't forget to send a donation. Thanks for reading!
diff --git a/content/post/book-lying.md b/content/post/book-lying.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f851b71
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/book-lying.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: "[Book] Lying"
+date: 2020-12-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Sam Harris[1] talks about how lying is more harmful than most people imagine. From white lies, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy to more serious political deception, Sam makes the case for not lying in any situation.
+
+[Book Link][2]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://samharris.org/](https://samharris.org/)
+[2: https://samharris.org/books/lying/](https://samharris.org/books/lying/)
diff --git a/content/post/book-the-selfish-gene.md b/content/post/book-the-selfish-gene.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0205d61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/book-the-selfish-gene.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "[Book] The Selfish Gene"
+date: 2021-04-08T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Famous atheist, evolutionary biologist, and coiner of the modern term "meme" Richard Dawkins[1] takes a gene-centric view of Darwinian evolution by natural selection in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. The gene-centric view of evolution is beautifully elegant. It does a better job of explaining evolutionary concepts than overly reductionist theories such as group selection. The basic idea is incredibly simple, an overview of it given in the first two chapters with the rest of the book going into further detail.
+
+[Book Link][2]
+
+> “In the beginning was simplicity.” -- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene](https://wikiless.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)
diff --git a/content/post/book-waking-up.md b/content/post/book-waking-up.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..22877be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/book-waking-up.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+title: "[Book] Waking Up"
+date: 2021-01-29T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+This is my second book recommendation and here I am again recommending a book authored by Sam Harris[1]. And it's probably not the last time I'll recommend his books. Allow me to justify why his content gets so much promotion on this blog.
+
+# Why I Promote Sam Harris Content
+When someone holds a false belief, especially if it's a core belief, they are likely to accept other concomitant falsehoods. This is why you don't hear about theoretical physicist flat earthers. Being a theoretical physicist entails beliefs about the physical universe which are incompatible with believing the earth is flat. To knowingly hold contradictory beliefs, the phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance[2], is psychologically distressing. So people make some effort, however minimal, to reconcile their beliefs to create a consistent picture of reality.
+
+The converse is also true. When someone holds true core beliefs, they're usually right about concomitant truths as well. I'm vastly oversimplifying and I could mention many caveats but that's generally the case. On several subject areas of my interest Sam Harris consistently gets it right. He's adept at navigating the pitfalls others find themselves trapped in when talking about spirituality. Sometimes I learn completely new information from him but I also find that he often expounds on my own thoughts better than I can. I hope I will eventually be as articulate on this blog as he is in his writing. Nonetheless I don't agree with him about everything and I also don't desire for my own voice to be identical to his.
+
+# Waking Up
+When it comes to introducing spirituality to atheists and skeptics, Waking Up is the book to read. I've read it and reread it and I couldn't find any unsupported claims. It's expressive, relevant and intelligible to sincere truthseekers. Waking Up elaborates on the self in a clearer, more comprehensible way than my own[3] past attempts[4]. It mentions the idea of headlessness which I've also talked about before[5]. So before you read anything from other popular spiritual authors, I'd recommend reading Waking Up first. It gives the broader context that other books on spirituality leave out.
+
+Waking Up is a refreshing, rational middleground on spirituality avoiding both denial of spiritual experiences[6] by skeptics and mystical woo-woo[7] peddled by Deepak Chopra[8] and other pseudointellectuals. I recommend it to anyone remotely interested in spirituality.
+
+[Link below]
+https://samharris.org/books/waking-up[9]
+
+To finish off this post, I'll leave you with a quote from the book.
+
+> "Until we can talk about spirituality in rational terms—acknowledging the validity of self-transcendence—our world will remain shattered by dogmatism. This book has been my attempt to begin such a conversation." -- Sam Harris in Waking Up
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://samharris.org](https://samharris.org)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
+[3: /2020/05/02/the-self](../../../../2020/05/02/the-self/)
+[4: /2020/08/02/ego-traps](../../../../2020/08/02/ego-traps/)
+[5: /2020/11/02/the-eternal-here-and-now](../../../../2020/11/02/the-eternal-here-and-now/)
+[6: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Spirituality](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Spirituality)
+[7: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo)
+[8: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra)
+[9: https://samharris.org/books/waking-up](https://samharris.org/books/waking-up)
diff --git a/content/post/breaking-my-promise.md b/content/post/breaking-my-promise.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..712cb38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/breaking-my-promise.md
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+title: "Breaking My Promise"
+date: 2021-12-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Towards the end of July, I promised to quit flying until the climate crisis was averted and until the TSA stopped groping passengers.[1] As it turns out, that was a commitment I couldn't keep. I booked a flight. Since I made the commitment very publically, I don't think it's fair not to write an update after breaking it. I'm not perfect. I suppose the lesson here if there is one is that I shouldn't publically make commitments that I'm not certain I can keep.
+
+Although I still fly, the silver lining is I've made a different personal decision which drastically reduces my net emissions orders of magnitude more than not flying: I'm not having kids. Not having children may be my second best contribution to humanity besides this journal. I'm not 100% committing to this, but I estimate a very high probability that I won't have children. Especially because there's many reasons I don't want children besides just the climate, such as not becoming a slave to people with money.
+
+I'm also vegetarian for the climate and animal welfare reasons, but I think any good from that is probably canceled out by my flying. I still think everyone should avoid flying and also avoid having kids. Unfortunately I haven't been able to. So I broke my commitment. That's my update.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Flygskam](../../../../2021/07/25/flygskam/)
diff --git a/content/post/bringing-civility-to-public-discourse-with-the-steel-man-technique.md b/content/post/bringing-civility-to-public-discourse-with-the-steel-man-technique.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ecb76e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/bringing-civility-to-public-discourse-with-the-steel-man-technique.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+title: "Bringing Civility to Public Discourse With the Steel Man Technique"
+date: 2020-12-01T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The United States in 2020
+The political situation in the United States right now is tense, to say the least. President-elect Joe Biden won the 2020 general election. Meanwhile the bullshitter[1] continues to make baseless claims of massive mail-in voter fraud to discredit the election results. No doubt the tens of millions of Americans duped into his personality cult[2] will fall for his lies, with some taking political action as we near inauguration day[3]. The rest of Americans are bewildered by how the troll[4] even got elected in the first place. So there is a heavy emotional and ideological divide in America today and I think any American half paying attention senses it.
+
+Therefore I feel it my duty as a citizen to do what I can to bring people together in these divided times. I don't think it's good to create consensus for the sake of it by suggesting everyone take the middle ground[5]. No, the goal is to collectively arrive at truth, which may or may not lie somewhere in the middle. So in this post I'm going to suggest a technique I think will drastically improve the public discourse which, I feel, is one of America's biggest problems right now.
+
+# The Steel Man Technique
+Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett[6] described a method for arguing with a person that holds opposing views. If you've ever heard of the straw man fallacy[7], it's just the opposite of that. With the straw man, you misrepresent your opponent's argument to make it easier to take down. With the steel man, you face the most charitable interpretation of your oppenent's argument. There are 4 steps to steelmanning as explained by Dennett:
+
+1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way."
+2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
+3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
+4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
+
+## Step 1
+The first 3 steps comprise the steel man tactic. What I like about the first step is it forces you to understand your target's position. If you restate your target's position and they don't agree with your summary, then allow them to correct you. Expressing your target's position in your own words in a way they agree with shows that you actually understand their argument. You can't argue against a position you don't understand. If you don't understand it, how can you know that you disagree?
+
+## Step 2
+Step 2 is the most important step. It gives you credibility. It shows you're interested in arriving at the truth, not just winning the argument. You don't see it in politics because most of the time it's just about winning the argument. Politicians think that if they give their opponent an inch, then they're conceding the entire debate. But by refusing to concede on any points, or at least refusing to validate the reasons behind those points, they lose all credibility. They show themselves uninterested in understanding the other side's point of view.
+
+I'm not saying you should take the middle ground[8]. I absolutely disagree with that. In some cases, your target is just going to be wrong on every point. In those cases, agreeing with your target is inappropriate. What I recommend instead is trying to relate in any other way to what your target is saying. It's important that you never assume your target's motivation for making an argument. Otherwise, you risk creating a straw man, patronizing them and turning them off to what you're about to say. If you do make an assumption about your target's reasons for making an argument, always phrase it as a question leaving open the chance for them to interject. Whatever you do, don't skip step 2. Without step 2, it's not steelmanning.
+
+## Step 3
+The third step allows your target to feel good about themselves before you engage them. It shows them that they added value to your life by teaching you something new. For example it could be what makes the argument appeal to them. The point may have already been refuted 1,000 times[9], but maybe there's something novel that appeals to the person you're talking to about that argument that you never considered. You're not always going to learn something from your target. My advice for this step is to be genuine. If you do learn something, tell the target. If not, don't act like you did. That's disingenuous and could damage your credibility.
+
+## Step 4
+The step you've all been waiting for! In step 4 you get to tear down your target's argument. Remember you are tearing down the argument, not the person. Never tear down the person unless their character is directly relevant to the subject of debate. If I'm debating with someone about health care in the United States, that person's character is totally irrelevant to the conversation. If I'm running for public office, then my character is directly relevant to my campaign. It's not just about the issues. It's about who I am because you can't know that I'll faithfully execute my duties unless you know I'm credible. In that case it does make sense to criticize the person.
+
+# Why Steelmanning Works
+Evolution hasn't caught up with modern society. It's a slow process that takes millions of years. Meanwhile society has advanced rapidly, especially since the scientific revolution. A vestige of our caveman past is the fight-or-flight response[10] in our reptile brains. Back when our species was hunter-gatherer, threats were constant and danger was all around us. Nowadays, especially in civilized societies, we don't have to worry about that as much. But when our core beliefs are challenged, it can still trigger the ancient fight-or-flight response. Once that happens, we aren't going to be really listening to our debate opponent. We also subconsciously identify with our beliefs. When those beliefs are challenged, our very identity is called into question.
+
+The reason steelmanning is effective is it lowers a person's psychological barriers to criticism. By making your target feel heard, validating their points, and showing them you're interested in the truth even if you're wrong, you lower their guard so they'll be more willing to hear your opinion. Steelmanning is completely independent of your political affiliation. Anyone with any set of beliefs can practice steelmanning. If more people did this, it could vastly improve public discourse.
+
+# Tact
+You are going to hear good criticisms of your beliefs from people that have poor tact. It's important not to throw out criticism just because it comes from someone that doesn't use steelmanning. I value diversity in argument techniques. We don't need everyone steelmanning all the time. Christopher Hitchens[11] was a world renowned debater and he definitely wasn't known for politeness, yet he was far from ineffective. Here's a quote by him:
+
+"My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass."
+
+Hitchens was a legend no doubt. He managed to be effective in debates and win an audience even though he enjoyed being rude to people. He had tact. Most of us can't do that. It takes a very witty person to pull it off the way he did. I'm grateful that there's a large variety of ways people debate. There isn't one right way to debate because different tactics appeal to different audiences. But there was only one Hitchens. Therefore, our public discourse in the United States would be best served by moving in a more "Dennett" direction instead of a more "Hitchens" direction.
+
+With the steel man technique, we stand a better chance at bridging the political divide and having more fruitful conversations with those we disagree with. Every American half paying attention realizes how important it's going to be that we can have those conversations as we near inauguration day.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://stallman.org/glossary.html#bullshitter](https://stallman.org/glossary.html#bullshitter)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration](https://wikiless.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration)
+[4: https://stallman.org/glossary.html#troll](https://stallman.org/glossary.html#troll)
+[5: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett)
+[7: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)
+[8: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground)
+[9: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times)
+[10: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response_(in_humans)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response_(in_humans))
+[11: https://christopherhitchens.net/](https://christopherhitchens.net/)
diff --git a/content/post/businesses-should-be-required-to-accept-cash.md b/content/post/businesses-should-be-required-to-accept-cash.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e6ae0b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/businesses-should-be-required-to-accept-cash.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "Businesses Should be Required to Accept Cash"
+date: 2022-04-22T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Businesses Should be Required to Accept Cash
+Businesses in the U.S. don't have to accept cash as payment for purchases, but I think they should have to. There's even a push in some countries to go completely cashless. This, in my view, would be a huge mistake. Cash helps the elderly, the poor, the unbanked, immigrants, journalists, and dissidents. Cash is the only way to purchase goods and services anonymously in regular stores.
+
+Taking away the option to pay cash makes life harder on those trying to avoid mass surveillance and turns stores into Big Brother's little helpers. In order to protect the right to privacy, we need the right to private everyday transactions, and for that we need the right to pay cash.
+
+The ability to buy things online anonymously is also important, but cannot be done conveniently using cash. For that, I think we ought to adopt a privacy-preserving digital payment system like GNU Taler[1].
+
+We should not use cryptocurrency which has a track record of extreme energy inefficiency, being impossible to regulate or tax, mostly not private, wild fluctuations in value, glacial transaction confirmation times and single-digit transaction throughput. Maybe all those problems can be solved, but I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I consider cryptocurrency not viable.
+
+# Why Not Replace Cash With GNU Taler?
+Now you might say "But Nick, why not just replace cash with GNU Taler? That would eliminate the extra work of handling paper bills". I actually think that's a bad idea for several reasons.
+
+## Cash is More Private
+The first reason is that there's a sense in which cash is more anonymous than any digital payment system can be, for in-person transactions. Private digital payment systems use encryption schemes, but encryption is a timer, not a lock.[1]
+
+GNU Taler transactions are private until the underlying cryptographic primitives are broken, and nobody knows if or when that will happen. Cash doesn't rely on underlying cryptographic primitives. It stays private forever, giving it a decisive advantage.
+
+## Taler Might Require a Smartphone
+Another big reason I don't want to see cash replaced with GNU Taler is that you might need a smartphone to use Taler in physical stores. I say "might" because I'm not 100% sure about this, so take it with a grain of salt. I just think we shouldn't increase society's dependence on smartphones more than it already is. There are more than enough reasons to avoid using them.[3] Paper bills don't have such a troublesome dependency.
+
+## Cash is Familiar
+Now if you're a young person, this next point might not seem like a big deal. But, if you've ever tried to help an old person with their phone or computer, then you know how long it can take for the elderly to learn new technology. Cash is familiar. It has been around for a long time. A lot of elderly people are still uncomfortable with credit cards, which aren't that new.
+
+And remember, the elderly vote. So if they get the idea that Taler is going to be replacing cash, they might resist Taler as a form of payment whereas if Taler is presented as just another payment option, they'll be indifferent.
+
+Getting rid of cash would hinder the financial independence of a segment of the population. Imagine your local grocery store at peak volume with 10 people waiting in line, an 80 year old man holding up the line trying to remember where his granddaughter showed him the GNU Taler app was, barely able to read the small text on his phone. The clerk has to come around the counter to help him figure it out. Now she's tech support too. Multiply that across every supermarket.
+
+# Conclusion
+So, in conclusion, businesses should be mandated to accept cash as a form of payment. As for online stores, we should adopt GNU Taler for private digital cash. There may need to be extra considerations or even exceptions to accepting cash for stores in areas with rampant crime, but most stores won't have any major problems taking cash.
+
+I don't think a cashless society is an inherently bad idea. It would just be premature. At the very least, there should be an established anonymous digital payment option that is just as easy and convenient as cash before going cashless is even considered.
+
+Thanks so much for reading my thoughts. Email me know if you have any comments, questions, or concerns.[4]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: GNU Taler](https://taler.net)
+[2: Encryption is a Timer, Not a Lock](../../../../2022/03/23/encryption-is-a-timer-not-a-lock/)
+[3: Why I Don't Have a Smartphone](../../../../2021/12/26/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone/)
+[4: Email](mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch)
diff --git a/content/post/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022.md b/content/post/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4c38634
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: "Come Watch Me Present at LibrePlanet 2022!"
+date: 2022-03-14T00:00:01
+draft: false
+---
+I will be delivering my talk, "Taking back the Web with Haketilo," on Saturday, March 19, 2022; 14:30–15:15 EDT, at the all-online LibrePlanet 2022 conference, and I hope you’ll check it out!
+
+LibrePlanet is a conference about software freedom, happening on March 19–20, 2022. The event is hosted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), and brings together software developers, law and policy experts, activists, students, and computer users to learn skills, celebrate free software accomplishments, and face upcoming challenges. Newcomers are always welcome, and LibrePlanet 2022 will feature programming for all ages and experience levels.
+
+Please register in advance, at https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=99.
+
+------
+
+Okay, enough of the boilerplate. I haven't said a word about Haketilo on this journal yet although I have shared an inspiring story about the main developer[1]. Haketilo is a browser extension project I've had some involvement in over the past few months. I'm very excited to have the opportunity to present it to LibrePlanet this year. You can find a brief biography of me and information about the talk on the LibrePlanet speakers website.[2]
+
+Something like Haketilo has been badly needed ever since JavaScript became a full-fledged programming language several decades ago. I'm surprised something like it didn't arise sooner, but I'm happy it's here now and I'm happy to be a part of it.
+
+I'm normally very reserved when it comes to sharing myself online in a public space. I've uploaded pre-recorded videos online before and I've presented live in-person to classroom audiences, but never on webcam in a recorded public livestream that will be made available forever. So it will be a new experience for me. We'll see how it goes.
+
+I've been wanting to talk more about the Web on this journal for a while now. With this LibrePlanet talk, I'll kill two birds with one stone since I won't have to write an entry about it. There are other web-related talks happening at LibrePlanet this year as well. I may link to those on this journal if they cover lots of information I don't end up covering.
+
+There will be a Q&A session at the end of the talk. If you join the IRC, you can participate and ask me questions. After the talk, feel free to shoot me an email with questions or constructive criticisms. I hope to see you there!
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Struggle to Graduate Without Nonfree Software](../../../../2021/10/02/struggle-to-graduate-without-nonfree-software)
+[2: LibrePlanet Speakers](https://libreplanet.org/2022/speakers/)
diff --git a/content/post/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction.md b/content/post/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bfb8d45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+title: "Consumer Data Protection is a Distraction"
+date: 2021-01-18T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+This post is a public service announcement.
+
+# Why Businesses Collect Data
+Businesses collect data from consumers for a variety of reasons. Data is collected to provide better customer service, provide a personalized customer experience, refine marketing strategy, derive other data, suggest new products, make predictions, recommendations and determine optimal business decisions. But as internationally renowned security technologist and author Bruce Schneier points out, data is a toxic asset[1].
+
+# Why it's Dangerous
+I recommend reading his full blog post[2]. But from just a consumer perspective, giving companies your data is dangerous for several reasons according to Schneier:
+
+> "Saving it is dangerous because many people want it. Of course companies want it; that’s why they collect it in the first place. But governments want it, too. In the United States, the National Security Agency and FBI use secret deals, coercion, threats and legal compulsion to get at the data. Foreign governments just come in and steal it. When a company with personal data goes bankrupt, it’s one of the assets that gets sold.
+> 
+> Saving it is dangerous because it’s hard for companies to secure. For a lot of reasons, computer and network security is very difficult. Attackers have an inherent advantage over defenders, and a sufficiently skilled, funded and motivated attacker will always get in."
+
+That last part is important. "...a sufficiently skilled, funded and motivated attacker will always get in". The problem is you cannot trust corporations to keep your data safe. There aren't exceptions to this that come to mind. Even if we suppose the data is encrypted on the server and only you control the encryption key, that's not the case of a corporation being trustworthy to hold your data. They couldn't leak it if they wanted to. That's what's called trustless design. The system is set up so you don't have to trust whoever you're doing business with. The best of systems are set up that way. It's good for the consumer and it minimizes risk for the business.
+
+The central reason you can't trust businesses to keep your data safe is you don't know how it's being handled once it's out of your hands. Even if the business claims to have reasonable data protection, how can you possibly know that for sure? All it takes is 1 incompetent or malicious employee for your data to be leaked. All it takes is 1 out of date software package or 1 software vulnerability. All it takes is 1 government to steal from or coerce the business for the data. And if there's ever a merger or acquisition then some other business acquires your data as an asset by default.
+
+And let's not forget data is combined with other data by data brokers to derive things about you that you didn't explicitly share. You might think that 5 minute Youtube video of yourself doesn't reveal too much but disturbing uses of AI[3] can be applied to it to derive information that you didn't intend to include. And AI will only get better over time. You can't predict the capabilities future AI will have to derive new information from your data. Even if it's just metadata[4], remember the former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden's statement concerning NSA bulk surveillance: "We kill people based on metadata". Put simply, consumer data protection is, has always been, and will be for the foreseeable future, a house of cards.
+
+# How to Protect Yourself
+The only foolproof way to protect yourself from data leaks is to never give data to businesses in the first place. "Consumer data protection" is a distraction campaign. You see, the more businesses talk about "consumer data protection" the less "bandwidth" there is in public discourse to talk about outright refusal to give up your data. Businesses can tout their data security practices all they want but it distracts from the truth which is you can just choose not to give your data to companies. We now live in a culture of "I agree" to the point that people forget they can say no to these things. Don't consent. Don't click "I agree" unless you've actually read the terms. Don't provide identifying information without serious consideration.
+
+And for those of you who say "I have to give Goolag[5] my data! Rearranging my life to protect my data would be too hard! I need a Goolag account for my job or university or whatever the case may be." I leave you with a quote from the Roman stoic Seneca:
+
+> "It's not that we don't dare do things because they are difficult; rather, they are difficult because we don't dare" -- Seneca
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html)
+[2: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html)
+[3: https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai](https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Metadata](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Metadata)
+[5: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag)
diff --git a/content/post/cover-your-cameras.md b/content/post/cover-your-cameras.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..39d1347
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/cover-your-cameras.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "Cover Your Cameras"
+date: 2021-04-07T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+The reasons to cover your phone camera when you aren't using it overlap with the reasons to cover your built-in laptop webcam since phones are computers. So, I'll put them into a single, non-exhaustive list:
+
+* Covering your cameras protects you from hackers. Ever used your phone in an intimate place such as in the shower or on the toilet?
+* Covering your cameras protects you from government surveillance. See Optic Nerve[1].
+* Covering your cameras is a powerful precaution that takes seconds and costs nothing.
+* Many highly intelligent, tech-savvy individuals and organizations block their webcams and recommend you do the same including government offices, whistleblower Edward Snowden, former FBI director James Comey and CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg.
+* If you're blocking your built-in PC webcam, then not blocking your phone camera is inconsistent. Your phone is likely far more dangerous to your personal privacy than your computer.
+* You can always temporarily remove the tape, sticker, or sliding piece if you want to capture a photo or video.
+* You aren't using your webcam or phone camera 99% of the time.
+* Covering your cameras protects the privacy of others that may fall into the field of view of your cameras.
+* Camera LED indicators are not good at telling you when the camera is in use. Many of them can be disabled even when the camera is on and phones don't have them.
+* Covering your cameras encourages others to do the same. Most people have loads of big brother apps on their phones, so getting others to cover their cameras is highly desirable. It should be the norm.
+* There's no good reason not to. If you don't want the inconvenience of peeling tape and stickers off your devices, a cheap sliding piece of plastic will also solve the problem. See plastic webcam covers[2].
+
+If you can think of more reasons, shoot me an email[3]!
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo)
+[2: https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1sxaIm8jTBKNjSZFNq6ysFXXaQ/Computer-Camera-CoverMetal-Plastic-Webcam-Cover-Slide-for-Mac-Macbook-Pro-iMac-Laptop-Surfcase-Pro-Echo.jpg](https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1sxaIm8jTBKNjSZFNq6ysFXXaQ/Computer-Camera-CoverMetal-Plastic-Webcam-Cover-Slide-for-Mac-Macbook-Pro-iMac-Laptop-Surfcase-Pro-Echo.jpg)
+[3: /about](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/dead-mans-switch.md b/content/post/dead-mans-switch.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6920e79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/dead-mans-switch.md
@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+---
+title: "Dead Man's Switch"
+date: 2021-01-27T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Definition
+There are many kinds of dead man's switches (abbreviated here as DMS). The DMS's this post is concerned with are software-based[1]. More specifically this post is concerned with what I will call Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS's.
+
+Wikileaks[2] is a non-profit that has a history of publishing highly classified news leaks obtained through anonymous sources. In order to protect the leaks, some are prereleased in encrypted form with the decryption key rigged to self-publish in case the operations of Wikileaks are obstructed in the meantime.
+
+DMS's are also used 3 times in the TV series Mr. Robot[3]. One is first used by Elliot Alderson[4] threatening to leak Fernando Vera[5]'s drug supplying operation to protect his dealer sweetheart Shayla[6] (S1E6[7]). The second is in the form of an email from Trenton[8] to Elliot hinting how to undo the 5/9 hack (S3E8[9]). The last comes again from Elliot threatening to leak information to hurt the antagonist White Rose[10] (S3E10[11]).
+
+There are 2 key elements common to the DMS's I've referenced so far:
+
+1. A person or group that stands to lose something if private information is published.
+2. An adversary that rigs private information to self-publish unless deactivated.
+
+Now I'll consider the potential uses for such a device.
+
+# Use Cases
+## Self-Defense
+The first use case that comes to mind for a Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS is self-defense. If you learn something others want to keep private, you could be in danger. You "know too much". From organized crime to classified government documents the most obvious way to deal with someone who knows too much is to have them killed, assuming you have let's say a highly questionable moral compass. Dead men tell no tales.
+
+A DMS is a way of turning the "knowing too much" problem on its head. It's especially useful for dissidents and independent journalists that regularly find themselves pitted against powerful multinational corporations, the state[12] and large criminal enterprises[13]. It can be used as a bargaining chip to protect yourself and those you care about. If anyone you care about is harmed the private information is assured to leak, so instead of "dead men tell no tales" it becomes "living men tell no tales".
+
+You should carefully consider before using one. They have the potential to be effective only if used correctly. You might ask what is the value of the leak? The final time Elliot used one in Mr. Robot the threat of the leak wasn't devastating enough to protect him from White Rose. Elliot was only able to save himself by proving he had worth. It's also important to consider how long will the leak hold value? After Vera's operation was over he stood to lose nothing from Elliot's leak. Elliot was again saved only because of his value, not his DMS. The lesson there is to be thoughtful before using one.
+
+## Leak Defense
+The next use case is to protect the leak itself. When the leak is obtained from an anonymous source it's disorganized and hard to read. So before Wikileaks publishes a leak they have to curate[14] the content. But there's a danger that while they're doing that the leak could be seized or destroyed by an adversary. To mitigate that they can set up a DMS so the data will get published either way. Then the adversary no longer has any incentive to interfere with the data curation process.
+
+## Offense
+As for offense, it doesn't make as much sense to use a DMS. Even though it could be used illegally for blackmail or extortion it would only be necessary if the offender was concerned about ending up in a situation where they can't leak the information. At that point they'd probably be more interested in self-defense than offense anyway. Unless there are circumstances I'm overlooking then Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS's aren't very useful for offense.
+
+For the rest of this post I'm going to focus only on the self-defense use case.
+
+# Theory and Practice
+## In Theory
+In theory the DMS represents a sequential, noncooperative game[15] between 2 players. Player 1 (the defender) chooses between leaking Player 2's secrets and doing nothing. Player 2 (the attacker) chooses between violence against Player 1 and doing nothing. Both players are assumed to be rational. Here are the payoffs for each strategy:
+
+1. If Player 2 commits violence then 1. Player 1 loses 2 points (harm) 2. Player 2 gains 1 point (retribution)
+2. If Player 1 leaks data then 1. Player 2 loses 2 points (harm) 2. Player 1 gains 1 point (retribution)
+
+This point structure assumes both Players value retribution but not as much as avoiding harm. Both Players assume the other will adopt the strategy of maximizing their own points. Using the Minimax[16] algorithm it can be determined that both Players will do nothing. Any other action would result in both players having less points. Points are represented for each Player in the format (P1,P2) in the decision tree below:
+
+[decision_tree [IMG]](../../../../resource/decision_tree.jpg)
+
+## In Practice
+In practice there are a number of complicating factors. Player 2 may not know exactly what the leaks contain making it impossible to value the cost of violence. Player 1 can create the perception of cost but in reality not even set up the switch or set one up incorrectly so it doesn't work or simply forget to deactivate it thus triggering it. Player 2 may find a way to disarm it. To account for the real-world outcomes you would need a much larger decision tree. And even then what are the chances that both players act rationally? So don't think that a DMS is guaranteed to be effective.
+
+# Setup
+If you still want to configure a DMS the first thing to consider is how to format the data you wish to include.
+
+## Luks2
+If you're gathering data to be included in the leak on an ongoing basis then you should probably use an encrypted disk image file. I recommend using LUKS2[17] for the encrypted disk image. There are plenty of tutorials out there on how to use it so I won't be going over that in this post. To leak the data is easy. Just publish the encryption slot passphrase.
+
+## GnuPG2
+If instead you already have all the data you're ever going to leak then you can just create a Tar[18] archive encrypted with GnuPG[19]. GnuPG is awful[20] so you might consider other file encryption methods as well. It doesn't matter that much so long as you use free software.
+
+## Content Distribution
+Once your encrypted archive is prepared you'll need to distribute it to others. Wikileaks "insurance" files were distributed through torrents. In Mr. Robot email was used. There's no standard for this. It's completely up to you how you do this part. The important part is anyone that would want a copy knows about the leak and can get a copy.
+
+## VPS Setup
+Now comes the part of the setup where you need a server machine to actually trigger the DMS. If you're using a DMS there's no reason not to make it as secure as possible because securing it from a state-level adversary is only a few steps extra versus securing it from a mobster. I won't cover how to secure your personal computer but if you're using a DMS you should at a minimum have full-disk encryption[21] enabled with a strong password.
+
+To get started use an anonymous VPS since you shouldn't have physical access to the server. If you have physical access an adversary could also gain physical access and permanently disarm the switch. So the first thing you need to do is acquire Monero[22]. Then use Tor Browser to purchase a foreign VPS[23] with the Monero, but don't give the VPS provider your true credentials. You can ssh into your VPS with the command torify ssh <user>@<server>. Then you should harden your ssh configuration[24] and put sshd behind a Tor v3 Hidden Service[25] so a MITM[26] can't locate it. Once all that's done you're finally ready to set up the actual DMS.
+
+## Cron
+There is free software that automatically configures a DMS, but it's equally as easy to set one up yourself. Simply write a script that checks for the existence of a file and schedule it to run at regular intervals using Cron[27]. If the file exists, delete it. If the file does not exist, your script should execute a separate script that publishes the passphrase or private key needed to decrypt the data. It's up to you where you publish the decryption key. Just be sure to test it first with a fake key.
+
+Here's what such a script might look like:
+
+```bash {linenos=table}
+# File: /home/<user>/trigger.sh
+
+FILE_DISARMED=/home/<user>/disarmed
+LEAK_SCRIPT=/home/<user>/leak.sh
+
+if test -f $FILE_DISARMED"; then
+    rm $FILE_DISARMED
+else
+    ./LEAK_SCRIPT  # publishes private key etc.
+fi
+```
+
+The script for disarming the switch might look like:
+
+```bash {linenos=table}
+# File: /usr/local/bin/disarm.sh
+
+FILE_DISARMED=/home/<user>/disarmed
+GREEN='\033[0;32m'
+CYAN='\033[0;36m'
+NC='\033[0m'
+
+if test  -f $FILE_DISARMED; then
+    printf "${CYAN}ALREADY DISARMED.${NC}\n"
+else
+    touch $FILE_DISARMED
+    printf "${GREEN}SUCCESSFULLY DISARMED.${NC}\n"
+fi
+```
+
+Those two scripts are the most important. Don't forget to set their permissions as executable. Next you need to decide how often you want the switch to be triggered. You can set it to be as frequent as you wish but remember if the switch isn't deactivated each time before trigger.sh runs it will publish the private key. The last thing you want is to accidentally trigger the switch. Phoenixnap.com has a great knowledgebase article[28] on using Cron. Here's an example that triggers the switch monthly at 00:00 hrs:
+
+```plaintext
+@monthly /home/<user>/trigger.sh
+```
+
+And finally the client command to disarm the switch is:
+
+```bash
+torify ssh <user>@<address.onion> disarm.sh
+```
+
+## Reminder
+As an added bonus you could use Cron to schedule a script notifying you before the DMS is triggered. For instance if the DMS needs disarmed on a monthly basis you could write a script that emails you a week in advance a reminder to deactivate it. Again a DMS is only effective if you don't forget to disarm it, so I wouldn't create a DMS without a notification script.
+
+That's it. That's all you need to set up your own DMS.
+
+# Popularity
+You don't hear about Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS's being used very often. I assume that's because of 3 reasons:
+
+1. They require knowledge of GNU/Linux, encryption tools and scripting
+2. They require continuous maintenance
+3. They don't occur to most people to use
+
+In my view DMS's are woefully underused and they should be more common especially with dissidents, protest organizers and investigative journalism organizations. The fact that Jeffrey Epstein didn't have a DMS before he "killed himself[29]" is almost beyond believe. A man with his wealth and criminal connections should've had one. He could've privately paid someone to set it up for him.
+
+I think about how his situation might have turned out differently if he would've set up one. Assuming he didn't commit suicide it could have protected him long enough to call out other rich and powerful people involved in sex trafficking. But it goes farther than Epstein. There are lots of situations where wealthy individuals and those with computer skills could have set up a DMS to protect themselves but apparently didn't think to do so.
+
+As I said before one should be careful before using a DMS. Using one is tricky in practice but it still seems like they could get far more use than they tend to. I'm generally in favor of them since they seem to be primarily used for preventing violence and protecting socially important leaks. Like any tool they can be misused for nefarious purposes. Based on present usage though, if they were used more often in the future, I estimate that, on balance, they would be ethically and socially beneficial.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Dead_man%27s_switch#Software](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Dead_man%27s_switch#Software)
+[2: https://wikileaks.org/](https://wikileaks.org/)
+[3: https://mrrobot.fandom.com](https://mrrobot.fandom.com)
+[4: https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Elliot_Alderson](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Elliot_Alderson)
+[5: https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Fernando_Vera](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Fernando_Vera)
+[6: https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shayla_Nico](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shayla_Nico)
+[7: https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Eps1.6_v1ew-s0urce.flv](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Eps1.6_v1ew-s0urce.flv)
+[8: https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Trenton](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Trenton)
+[9: https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Eps3.8_stage3.torrent](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Eps3.8_stage3.torrent)
+[10: https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Whiterose](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Whiterose)
+[11: https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shutdown_-r](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shutdown_-r)
+[12: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/07/florida-police-raid-data-scientist-coronavirus](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/07/florida-police-raid-data-scientist-coronavirus)
+[13: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein)
+[14: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Data_curation](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Data_curation)
+[15: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Non-cooperative_game](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Non-cooperative_game)
+[16: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Minimax#Example_2](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Minimax#Example_2)
+[17: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup)
+[18: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Tar_%28computing%29](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Tar_%28computing%29)
+[19: https://wikiless.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard](https://wikiless.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard)
+[20: https://secushare.org/PGP](https://secushare.org/PGP)
+[21: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Full_disk_encryption](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Full_disk_encryption)
+[22: https://www.monero.how/](https://www.monero.how/)
+[23: https://www.getmonero.org/community/merchants/#hosting](https://www.getmonero.org/community/merchants/#hosting)
+[24: https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.html](https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.html)
+[25: https://medium.com/@NullByteWht/how-to-set-up-an-ssh-server-with-tor-to-hide-it-from-shodan-hackers-eda93927a742](https://medium.com/@NullByteWht/how-to-set-up-an-ssh-server-with-tor-to-hide-it-from-shodan-hackers-eda93927a742)
+[26: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle)
+[27: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cron](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cron)
+[28: https://phoenixnap.com/kb/set-up-cron-job-linux](https://phoenixnap.com/kb/set-up-cron-job-linux)
+[29: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Epstein_didn%27t_kill_himself](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Epstein_didn%27t_kill_himself)
diff --git a/content/post/dealing-with-close-minded-people.md b/content/post/dealing-with-close-minded-people.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..181809d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/dealing-with-close-minded-people.md
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+---
+title: "Dealing With Close-Minded People"
+date: 2021-08-28T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Motivation
+I'm going to start this post in the same way I've started a few previous posts which is by sharing what motivated me to write it.
+
+## Atheism
+It all started around age 12, when I began questioning religion. I wanted to find out whether there really was a god or not. So I watched debates between the religious and the non-religious, performed my own research on the arguments and, thanks largely to the New Atheists[1], I concluded that religion was not only false, but an extremely harmful mind virus that ought to be eradicated.
+
+When I outed myself as an atheist, some people I knew became concerned that I might be depressed based on nothing other than the fact that I had become an atheist. At the time, I thought that was a strange conclusion to arrive at. But as time went on, I noticed a few things that helped me understand why some people reacted this way.
+
+There was a lady who insisted to me that her dead parent communicated with her through wind chimes. People who had never gone to church a day in their life suddenly started going when they were close to death. They started becoming much more concerned with religion. I watched grief-stricken relatives of the deceased lose faith. People who personally had a run of bad luck told me they didn't believe in a god any longer.
+
+## Belief Formation
+Through those observations, I realized that sometimes people form beliefs based on factors other than evidence. They believe what is comforting rather than what the facts bear out. They believe what others around them believe. They believe what is personally convenient for them to believe.
+
+It dawned on me that the reason people thought I was depressed was because they assumed that my belief in a god was related to how I felt emotionally at that time. And the reason I did not understand why their beliefs could change without any new information was I assumed that their belief formation process was based purely in evidence.
+
+To be clear I'm not saying I never have biases or I never make mistakes. Everybody does. I'm only saying that on the topic of religion, I was able to evaluate the evidence rationally without falling for superstitious thinking.
+
+Why was I able to think clearly about the evidence while others were biased toward comforting religious superstitions? Over the years I've developed an interest in what causes people to not be able to think clearly about evidence. I've become curious about reasons people are close-minded and what the best ways of dealing with close-mindedness are. I've picked up a few causes of close-mindedness and ways to deal with it that I'd like to share.
+
+Keep in mind I'm talking about close-mindedness in the context of beliefs, not in the context of willingness to try new things. So let's dive into the principal causes of close-mindedness as I seem them.
+
+# Causes of Close-Mindedness
+## Fear
+Religion is a perfect example of people closing off their minds due to fear. People are afraid to die. So they tell themselves a comforting story that most of society approves of. If religion is true, they never really have to die. There's the aspect of other people believing it which makes the myth more credible. There's a system of terrible punishments and great rewards for believing in it. The anecdotes I gave earlier about people becoming suddenly concerned about religion when they near death really give the show away. Religion is a myth people use to cope with death-anxiety.
+
+## Mental Effort
+Another reason people are close-minded is because changing your mind takes mental effort, especially if you're changing your mind about one of your core beliefs. If you believe for instance that people have free will, as the US justice system is based on, then you'd have to rearrange your entire internal moral framework if you learned people do not have free will. That's a lot of mental effort. Wouldn't it be so much easier to go on believing that people do have free will since your entire understanding of ethics is based on that?
+
+It's not as if you can just change your mind only about free will and leave every other peripheral belief intact. You'd feel cognitive dissonance[2] that would demand to be addressed. Holding beliefs that you know to be mutually incompatible is unpleasant. Therefore you're forced to either suffer psychologically or invest mental energy into correcting your other beliefs built on the foundation of free will.
+
+There's also the fear that you might not know what to believe any more. What if you can't figure out how to justify holding people responsible for their actions without free will? There's the worry that any time you change one of your beliefs, you don't exactly know how that might affect the others. You don't know how it might cause you to change your behavior. And that can be scary.
+
+## Sunk Costs
+People also avoid being open to new ideas because they've invested considerable time and energy into opposing ideas. If you spend 10 years of your life promoting a cause, and someone tries to convince you that the cause is immoral, they're not just arguing against a belief. They're arguing against what you've spent 10 years of your life on. By then, it's probably part of your identity as a person.
+
+You're now so invested in this cause that any criticism, even if it's valid, is going to be really hard to listen to. You may feel personally attacked when someone attacks the cause you fight for. They're basically saying "You not only wasted 10 years of your life, but you spent it doing something that is harmful".
+
+Besides, what kind of person would you be if you invested 10 years of your life doing harm to the world by promoting bad ideas? That could be a major blow to your self-esteem. It would be very painful to find out you were wrong that whole time. So there's the fear of psychic pain. You might even feel obligated to try to undo the damage you've done to society through promoting bad ideas which comes back to more mental effort.
+
+## Social Security
+The final reason I want to offer for close-mindedness is social security. What I mean by that is your existing beliefs are probably integrated with your social environment. If you change your mind about those beliefs, you become incompatible with the segment of society in which you socialize.
+
+So for example, if you lean conservative, your close friends probably lean conservative. You might work somewhere where conservative values are promoted. You might share the same beliefs as your family if they're conservative too. In general, your social environment supports your beliefs. If your beliefs become incompatible with the segment of society you socialize in, that could cause you problems.
+
+If you're open about the changes in your belief system, then you might lose your job. You might find yourself in frequent, unwanted conflicts with people you normally socialize with. You might have to look for new people to socialize with. So you might instead decide to keep your mouth shut about your new beliefs to continue fitting into your social circle. As it turns out, that's not easy either.
+
+Cognitive dissonance shows up again as you mislead your social circle into thinking you still align with them. You have to pretend to believe in things that now seem absurd to you. There's the element of mental effort showing up again. Pretending to be someone you're not is very mentally taxing. There's also the element of sunk costs. You've put a lot of effort into the relationships you've built over the years. So maybe it would just be easier to pretend instead of facing the fact that your friends no longer like the real you. If you're not in an environment where it's easy to meet new people, then you risk losing your social life altogether for who knows how long. That's a scary and painful prospect.
+
+## Conclusion
+I hope you're starting to see how all these causes each play into one another. All of them boil down to fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of not knowing how your life is going to change, fear of losing your social standing with others, fear of not knowing what to believe during the transition period of changing your mind, fear that your self-image will be damaged from learning you supported a bad cause, etc.
+
+But we have to get over fear, put aside our ego and be honest with ourselves when it comes to what we believe. We have to be open to hearing new evidence and to changing our minds. That's the essence of open-mindedness and that's how we advance the public conversation.
+
+# Dealing With Close-Minded People
+So let's assume you yourself are open-minded. Provided the right evidence to the contrary, you would change your mind about almost anything. It's like Anthony Magnabosco[3] says in his street epistemology (SE)[4] videos, "If I'm wrong, I wanna know it". But how do you deal with people who aren't so open-minded?
+
+## Determine Close-Mindedness
+If you're going to approach close-minded people differently from the open-minded, which I suggest you do to preserve your own sanity, you must first determine that the person you're dealing with is actually close-minded. To determine that, here are a couple key questions to ask them:
+
+* If you're wrong, would you want to know it?
+* Would you change your mind if there were evidence to the contrary?
+
+Now just because someone says yes to these questions doesn't mean they're open-minded. But a no to either of these questions almost certainly means you're dealing with somebody who isn't even willing to consider the possibility of being wrong. It's probably not worth your sanity trying to engage them, unless you have an audience. This leads me to my first piece of advice in dealing with close-minded people.
+
+## Engage Close-Mindedness With an Audience
+Even with a small audience of 3 or 4 people, engaging the close-minded person may be worth it. Of course you won't convince them. That's a given. They've already decided ahead of time they will never be convinced. But you might nudge some bystanders in the right direction. The bigger the audience, the more worthwhile it is to engage with the close-minded person.
+
+## Be Open-Minded
+If you do decide to engage such a person and you have an audience, you yourself must be open-minded. This is vital. If you're not willing to consider that they might be partially right, to concede the valid points they make, to admit when you don't know something, you lose credibility. It's just 2 close-minded fools going back and forth getting nowhere.
+
+You'll get much more respect from others being open-minded. Bystanders who don't have a strong opinion either way will be more likely to listen to you because you're open to hearing new evidence while the other person isn't. You also set a positive example for others on how to engage people, whether open-minded or close-minded.
+
+## Have Reasonable Expectations
+Also keep in mind that people seldom admit they're wrong in realtime. You can see this if you watch Anthony Magnabosco's SE videos. Usually people change their minds after retreating to the safety of solitude. Then if you're lucky, they'll openly admit they changed their mind later. It just comes down to people don't like admitting they're wrong because it feels like they're making a fool of themselves in front of others.
+
+So with that in mind, don't expect any person, open-minded or close-minded, to change their mind in realtime. Giving people time to themselves just to think about what has been said is how minds change. Long pauses give time for the other person to integrate what you've just said. There has to be some breathing room which brings me to my next point.
+
+## Set a Stopping Point
+It's wise to set a stopping point. It's so easy to go on arguing with someone until you're blue in the face. What you end up doing is only triggering their psychological defense mechanisms, making them more close-minded, more unwilling to listen to you, and possibly even more entrenched in their existing belief structures[5].
+
+The moment you start repeating yourself or the other person repeating themself, then it's probably time to wrap up. If nothing new is being added to the conversation, what then could be the benefit of continuing?
+
+## Set Boundaries
+Often people will want to continue arguing until they have smoke rushing out both ears and their face is as red as a tomato. They have the false notion that a consensus must be reached before they give themselves license to stop. They think that if they only repeat themselves for the 100th time, if they find the right words, they'll change your mind meanwhile they don't even consider the possibility of being wrong.
+
+This is why it's so important to set boundaries with close-minded people. Especially if you have to be in contact with them. It's perfectly okay to say "I don't want to have a debate right now". If they want to take that as a "win" for their side, let them. Your mental well-being is more important than trying to reason with someone who has decided ahead of time to never change their mind no matter what. Don't let them rope you into a debate you don't want to have.
+
+Robert Oxton Bolton once said, "A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind". Closed minds are impenetrable propaganda factories for the memes they hold. They do not adjust their beliefs according to new information. They simply find a reason to discard it and continue outputting what they already believe. Subjecting yourself to that can be psychologically damaging. It's not worth it, so set boundaries.
+
+## Refuse to Reevaluate False Claims
+Now for my final piece of advice on how to deal with close-mindedness, I urge you not to waste time reevaluating claims you already know to be false. I'll give an example.
+
+### Stop the Steal Conspiracy
+A republican I know recently insisted to me the 2020 U.S. presidential election was a sham and that Mike Lindell had proof. Cue the eye roll. According to an Ipsos/Reuters poll[6], over half of republicans believe that conspiracy. Since it's common, I was aware of the election fraud conspiracy before Mike Lindell was brought up. But I'd never heard of him before. If this guy had proof that the election was a sham, I definitely wanted to see it. So I took an open-minded attitude and started researching.
+
+Of course, after the most basic research of Mike Lindell, it was blindingly obvious to me that the guy was full of shit. He's a religious fanatic Trump loyalist who hosted a cyber symposium where he purported to show his "proof". I watched parts of the event. In it, he used the attention to sell pillows for his My Pillow company and displayed the most obvious partisanship putting up a huge picture of Trump's face on a big screen. I won't go through all the details. Suffice it to say he's so batshit even popular conservative media won't promote him.
+
+I'd investigated the claims of election fraud for the 2020 presidential election numerous times before Mike Lindell. I learned that the election fraud claims are conspiracy theories that have been debunked time and again. Courts have thrown out dozens of baseless election fraud claims. At some point you have to say "Okay, I've looked into it enough times. I'm not doing it any more. Unless something changes, I'm going to assume all future election fraud claims regarding the 2020 election are lies". That's just basic inductive reasoning.
+
+So when someone tells me again that the election was a sham and they have proof, I'm going to dismiss them. I'm not going to look into it for the millionth time and I'm not going to apologize for not looking into it. And that doesn't make me close-minded. Refusing to reevaluate the same claims you've already determined to be false many times in the past is not being close-minded. Don't let anybody convince you it is. Instead, preserve your time and sanity by refusing to reevaluate known false claims.
+
+# Conclusion
+So that's my best advice on dealing with close-minded people. It comes from lots of personal experience dealing with close-mindedness. I hope my readers find it helpful. If anyone has suggestions or additions to this post, just email me[7]. If you disagree with me on anything I've written here, I'd love to know what I got wrong.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: New Atheists](https://christopherhitchens.net/four-horsemen)
+[2: Cognitive Dissonance](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
+[3: Anthony Magnabosco](https://anthonymagnabosco.com/)
+[4: Street Epistemology](https://streetepistemologyinternational.org/)
+[5: Backfire Effect](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect)
+[6: Ipsos/Reuters Poll](https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-05/Ipsos%20Reuters%20Topline%20Write%20up-%20The%20Big%20Lie%20-%2017%20May%20thru%2019%20May%202021.pdf)
+[7: About Page](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/debugging-neomutt.md b/content/post/debugging-neomutt.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..10a78ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/debugging-neomutt.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+title: "Debugging Neomutt"
+date: 2021-12-13T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+About a month ago, I was checking my emails in Neomutt. When I opened a particular email, suddenly, Neomutt core dumped.
+
+I thought maybe this was a one-off. I started Neomutt again and tried to load the same email. It crashed again. Because the crash occurred when trying to open the contents of an email, I was concerned that it may be exploitable. So I started investigating.
+
+I was using the fake system time option in GPG for privacy, which caused problems in other applications. Since the email that crashed my client was encrypted, I suspected the bug had something to do with my esoteric GPG configuration. I found that if I disabled gpgme in Neomutt, the crash went away. 
+
+I wasn't sure how to further proceed in debugging, so I joined the Neomutt channel on Libera Chat[1], asking for help. I got in touch with Flatcap[2], the creator of Neomutt. He had me send him the raw email data for the email in question. Since he didn't possess my private key for decrypting it, he could not reproduce the bug.
+
+I wasn't about to send him my private key. Someone else suggested I could decrypt the email with my private key, then reencrypt it with a new private key I wouldn't mind divulging. Luckily I knew of a better way. GPG has the "--show-session-key" option. It's used to allow others to decrypt specific messages intended for you without giving them your private key.
+
+The Neomutt developers edited their GPG options inside the Neomutt configuration so it would successfully decrypt the original email. They used "--override-session-key <string>". Their clients did not crash when opening the email. At that point, I knew the cause was my GPG configuration. Still, an esoteric configuration should not cause Neomutt to core dump. Core dumps should never happen. So I was determined to find the root cause of the bug.
+
+Since Flatcap couldn't reproduce the crash, the only option left was to debug it myself. Flatcap helped me to compile Neomutt from source so I'd have the debugging symbols. Then he explained how to attach GDB to the Neomutt process. I proceeded to purposely crash Neomutt.
+
+With some more assistance, I then used GDB to check the variable values and found the error was coming from a print statement. It was a null pointer error caused by a partially defined key. In my case, the key was partially defined because the faked system time on GnuPG was dated before the key in question was created. It appeared to GPG that the key was created in the future. That's obviously impossible, which is why it was partially defined.
+
+Now that the cause of the crash was understood, Flatcap patched gpgme so it could handle partially defined keys. I pulled the patched branch, recompiled, and tried to open the buggy email again. No crash!
+
+Flatcap invited me to open a Github issue so I could take credit for finding the bug. I informed him I couldn't do that because I don't use Github.[3] So he just opened the issue and mentioned me instead.[4] I looked over it for review and approved.
+
+I thanked Flatcap for creating Neomutt. I really enjoy using it. I'm glad I was able to contribute to such a fantastic email client. The only reason this interaction was possible is because Neomutt is free software. If it were proprietary, I couldn't have debugged it with GDB. I probably wouldn't have gotten to interact directly with the developer who writes the software I use. I'd probably be stuck waiting days or weeks on a response from an opaque company where I couldn't even review the patch or get credit for reporting the bug.
+
+In free software communities, interactions like these are happening all the time. When people use proprietary software, they're not just missing out on good software. They're missing out on being part of a community. Free software isn't just about writing better code. That's open source. Neither is it fundamentally about money. That's proprietary software. Free software is about community.[5]
+
+
+```Free Software Song Lyrics
+Join us now and share the software;
+You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free
+Join us now and share the software;
+You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free
+
+Hoarders can get piles of money
+That is true, hackers, that is true
+But they cannot help their neighbors;
+That's not good, hackers, that's not good
+
+When we have enough free software
+At our call, hackers, at our call
+We'll kick out those dirty licenses
+Ever more, hackers, ever more
+
+Join us now and share the software;
+You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free
+Join us now and share the software;
+You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free
+```
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Libera Chat](https://libera.chat/)
+[2: Flatcap](https://github.com/flatcap)
+[3: Don't Use Github](../../../../2021/05/31/dont-use-github/)
+[4: Bug Report](https://github.com/neomutt/neomutt/pull/3137)
+[5: Free Software Song](https://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song-rhythmic.ogg)
diff --git a/content/post/disgustingly-rich.md b/content/post/disgustingly-rich.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a189cd1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/disgustingly-rich.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Disgustingly Rich"
+date: 2021-08-19T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+With income and wealth inequality at its peak, a few billionaires now own more wealth than half the world's population. What are they spending all that money on? Well, the world's richest man is using it to rocket himself into space and toss skittles around in zero-g. Meanwhile...
+
+* The climate and ecological crisis goes ignored as last month was the hottest month in recorded history.
+* Millions of people (including children) are starving and homeless.
+* The delta variant of Covid-19 spreads across the world, killing people while poor countries face a vaccine shortage.
+* Democracies are being converted into oligarchies.
+* The surveillance state continues to expand out of control, threatening democracy further.
+* Millions go without adequate healthcare due to a broken healthcare system.
+* Addiction to smartphones and social media worsens as big tech uses its power to brainwash the masses.
+* The poor get poorer while the rich get phenomenally richer.
+* Poor children are forced to work in sweatshops instead of going to school.
+* 29 other top-level issues as chosen by the UN[1].
+* A thousand other issues that won't fit on this list.
+
+Since the billionaires' greed is largely responsible for many of these crises in the first place, we ought to take back their wealth through a wealth tax and use it to solve the problems they created.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: List of Global Issues](https://wikiless.org/wiki/List_of_global_issues)
diff --git a/content/post/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts.md b/content/post/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3adc416
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts.md
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+title: "[Documentary] Line Goes Up - The Problem With NFTs"
+date: 2022-03-15T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Someone recently asked me what I think of NFTs. I sent them the documentary "Line Goes Up"[1]. If anyone in the future asks me my thoughts on cryptocurrency, DAOs, NFTs, Web3, or smart contracts, I will send them Line Goes Up. It currently only has around six million views, but it deserves more.
+
+Clearly, a lot of work went into it. The information is high quality with plenty of examples. It's basically one long two hour documentary about how cryptocurrency and everything built on top of it is full of empty promises, fraud, scams, and how the underlying technology fundamentally fails. When I finished watching it, I felt it was two hours well spent. I highly recommend it.
+
+# My History With Cryptocurrency
+For those of you who have followed my journal for a while now, you know I've become increasingly critical of cryptocurrency over the years. I wasn't always so critical. In fact, I used to be a total sucker.
+
+## Bitcoin
+My cryptocurrency journey started years before I ever conceived of this journal. I was disappointed that I missed the opportunity to "invest" in Bitcoin[2] earlier, so I decided to invest in it. At the time, I was under the impression that altcoins were just Bitcoin clones. They weren't the original, so why bother with them?
+
+## IOTA
+Some time later, I realized that blockchains didn't scale. So I became enamored with IOTA's[3] cryptocurrency based on "the tangle", which is really just a decentralized acyclic graph. I naively believed all their false promises and dumped money into it. I even tried to get other people to invest. I ended up losing bigtime because I didn't pull out, even after the price dropped. I thoroughly read the whitepaper, having more understanding of the technology than most other "investors", and I started asking questions.
+
+IOTA had a centralized coordinator, meaning that it wasn't even decentralized. I believe it still has the coordinator as of this time of writing. I joined forums asking what the plans were to remove it. I was met with vague non-answers. It was all smoke and mirrors. Eventually, after losing lots of money and realizing they had no real plan to fix the centralized coordinator, I ditched IOTA for good.
+
+In hindsight, I never should've had anything to do with IOTA to begin with. It's a cryptocurrency with the goal of transacting internet of things data. As a privacy guy, I don't even like the internet of things. So it made very little sense for me to invest in it.
+
+## Safe Network
+After IOTA, I still didn't see the full picture. I thought IOTA was a scam project going nowhere, but there still had to be projects with real promise. So I found yet another ponzi to throw my money at - Safecoin[4]. Safecoin didn't use a blockchain or a directed acyclic graph. It was entirely new and much more aligned with my goals.
+
+So naturally, I did some careful research and only then invested. Just kidding. No I didn't. I "invested" (gambled) before doing sufficient research. I did learn a lot about the technology. It's meant to be an open, decentralized, encrypted data store. They have a distributed hash table for routing and data storage. They developed a novel consensus mechanism. The Safe Network team recognized the scalability problems of blockchain.[5] Self-encryption seemed to make sense.
+
+I even promoted the project on this very journal just last year as a "next-generation cryptocurrency" even though they didn't even have a functioning network.[6] I understood the details of the technology as well as one could without actually being a developer. Like with IOTA, I started to doubt the project after I began asking questions.
+
+Just like with IOTA, for every question I asked about Safe Network, I seemed to get vague and indefinite answers. Every problem had a solution. And every problem within the solution had a solution. It was like an infinitely recursive gish gallop[7]. I eventually got tired of the non-answers and went to dump my holdings.
+
+Unfortunately for me, almost no exchange accepted Safecoin any more. It was built on the dated Mastercoin protocol and pulling out my funds was a huge hassle. I was glad that at I least realized the mistake I made and pulled out before losing it all though.
+
+## Monero
+I also made a new entry promoting TheHatedOne's video promoting Monero.[8] In fact, I even accepted Monero as a donation method at the time. I didn't invest in it. I just found Monero useful for performing anonymous online payments since there was no other way to privately buy things online.
+
+I knew all about the massive energy usage of proof-of-work coins at the time. Like most cryptocurrency enthusiasts, I just dismissed it as "not a waste". But over the next four months, I realized I had just been making excuses for the energy usage because I found the technology cool. It was the only way to transact privately online, so it would be really inconvenient for me if I also believed it was destroying the planet. 
+
+Eventually, I found I could no longer deny the energy impact any more. I decided to remove cryptocurrency as a donation method and make an entry recommending that people don't use proof-of-work-based cryptocurrencies[9]. I even began criticizing others who promoted proof-of-work cryptocurrency. I reasoned I would accept cryptocurrency again after a mass-adopted proof-of-stake currency was released.
+
+## A Cryptocurrency Startup
+Then, in the summer of 2021 while I was on vacation with my family, something unexpected happened. We heard a knock on the door of our beachside hotel. It was hotel security. They told us someone ran into our car in the parking lot.
+
+While I was busy in the hotel, my family went down to see what happened. I don't know exactly what took place, but at some point during the encounter they met a guy who asked if he could use Signal to contact them. Naturally, they introduced him to me and we set up a meeting.
+
+During the meeting, he told me that his team was working on a Polkadot[10]-esque cryptocurrency and that the ex-project-lead was being investigated by the district attorney for financial crimes. How fitting for a cryptocurrency project.
+
+The concept he proceeded to describe to me during our chat was so vague as to be impossible to implement. I asked for a sample of the code. There wasn't any. Not even a website. He just insisted to me his team, who I never met, were just getting started. He claimed to be very well connected and seemed to have some knowledge of cryptocurrency.
+
+He started mentioning cryptocurrency projects which by that time I knew were pure vaporware. He was very enthusiastic and seemed to care a lot about privacy. He was convinced cryptocurrency could empower the poor and unbanked, something no cryptocurrency has ever done. Given his unrealistic ideals and lack of code to show for them, I concluded whatever he had in mind would go nowhere and I shouldn't get involved.
+
+## Session
+At the end of September 2021 after vacation, I submitted a vulnerability report for getsession.org, the website of a cryptocurrency project I was paying attention to.[11] They fixed the vulnerability the next day after receiving my email.
+
+After the report, the Oxen team emailed me saying they read my journal entries and I seemed like a good fit to work there. I didn't believe so. I didn't have much experience programming security software, I was already involved in Haketilo, and the Oxen Privacy Tech Foundation wasn't committed to free software. Nothing came of it.
+
+## Future-Proof Digital Timestamping
+In November of 2021, I wrote an entry titled Future-Proof Digital Timestamping[12], where I explained how decentralized, future-proof digital timestamping could be performed using the Bitcoin blockchain. I timestamped this journal in order to prove to future readers that it isn't synthetic media.
+
+## Stephen Diehl
+A month later in December 2021, I stumbled across the blog of Stephen Diehl[13], where I found extremely harsh criticism of cryptocurrency which I'd never heard before. Here's an excerpt:
+
+> "Crypto is a cesspit of people swapping claims on non-economic nonsense in one giant orgy of internet memes and fools trying to screw each other playing mutual harm negative-sum games while chanting “we’re all going to make it”. All this while the house takes an enormous rake and changes the rules of the game to its liking whenever it likes." - Stephen Diehl, The Internet’s Casino Boats
+
+Pretty much all of his blog posts about cryptocurrency are this critical. I read several of his posts and found myself largely in agreement. I actually started to feel dumb that I ever put money into cryptocurrency or even considered being a part of a cryptocurrency project.
+
+## Present Day
+The culmination of this story happened just recently when I found Line Goes Up. I watched the documentary all the way through and found it highly informative. Thanks to Line Goes Up, I finally feel like I have the full picture when it comes to cryptocurrency, blockchain, and everything built on top of it. Now that I'm fully informed, I want nothing to do with it.
+
+Unfortunately it's not going to be easy for me to stop using it entirely. Ponzi as it may be, it's still the only way to buy certain things online anonymously. I'll have to figure out ways around that. For online services where I identify myself anyways, I can switch to a credit card. But acquiring a VPN anonymously without cryptocurrency is going to be tricky. I'll have to come up with a solution.
+
+I would say the two overarching lessons I learned from my experiences in cryptocurrency are:
+
+* Never invest in something you don't fully understand
+* Always question your own motives
+
+# GNU Taler
+Assuming people come to their senses and cryptocurrency loses its value, there will still be a need for anonymous online payments. GNU Taler[14] is working on that.
+
+It's not another cryptocurrency ponzi scheme. It doesn't try to fulfill the anarchist/libertarian fantasy of a fully decentralized, unregulated digital payment system that promises the world but delivers next to nothing.
+
+While I haven't done enough research on Taler to wholeheartedly endorse it, its goals already seem more realistic than any cryptocurrency. It's simply a digital payment system that works with banks to offer users truly private transactions using digital fiat money. That's it. It's not unregulatable. It aims to be fully auditable, efficient, fault-tolerant, libre, and usable while protecting buyer privacy using blind signatures.
+
+Given a lot of engineering effort and work with banks and policymakers, Taler's goals actually seem achievable. No, Taler isn't going to overthrow the banking industry and empower the poor, but neither is cryptocurrency. At least Taler can potentially give us all something that's desperately needed right now: a truly private digital payment system. It offers digital cash without the insanely high transaction fees, glacial transaction throughput, and environmental destruction.
+
+I see potential in GNU Taler because it aims to tackle the common types of fraud banks and their customers are actually concerned about like chargeback fraud, unlike cryptocurrencies which create a global energy-wasting competition to solve problems created by the currency itself.
+
+In an ideal future, I imagine all cryptocurrencies becoming worthless and GNU Taler succeeding. That would be nice. Maybe it'll happen. We'll just have to wait and see.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Line Goes Up - The Problem With NFTs](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g)
+[2: Bitcoin](https://bitcoin.org/)
+[3: IOTA](https://www.iota.org/)
+[4: SAFE Network](https://safenetwork.org/)
+[5: The New Internet Shouldn’t Be Blockchain-Based](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=i-RLdU8Y0Qc)
+[6: On Blockchain](../../../../2021/01/06/on-blockchain/)
+[7: Gish Gallop](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
+[8: [Video] Monero More Anonymous Than Cash](../../../../2021/03/18/video-monero-more-anonymous-than-cash/)
+[9: Avoid Using Cryptocurrency](../../../../2021/07/18/avoid-using-cryptocurrency/)
+[10: Polkadot](https://polkadot.network/)
+[11: Oxen Security Fail](../../../../2021/09/28/oxen-security-fail/)
+[12: Future-Proof Digital Timestamping](../../../../2021/11/13/future-proof-digital-timestamping/)
+[13: Stephen Diehl](https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog.html)
+[14: GNU Taler](https://taler.net)
diff --git a/content/post/documentary-sicko.md b/content/post/documentary-sicko.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6c4050c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/documentary-sicko.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "[Documentary] Sicko"
+date: 2021-01-19T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Failing American Healthcare System
+## Public Healthcare
+The American healthcare system is the most needlessly complicated healthcare system in the world. If you ask us Americans to explain how the system works, by and large we have no idea. I'm not even going to pretend I fully understand it. We have Medicare and Medicaid which both sound the same but Medicare is an insurance program available for seniors (people over 65) paid for by 2 trust fund accounts maintained by the Department of the Treasury and Medicaid a is welfare program for low-income people of any age paid for by federal income taxes. Then there's the children's health program for children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but aren't covered by private insurance. For veterans we have a nationalized healthcare system operated by the Veteran's Health Administration. But the public health programs don't fully cover healthcare costs because we have copayments that have to be paid out of pocket.
+
+## Private Healthcare
+If our government-run healthcare programs aren't needlessly complicated enough with all the bureaucratic red tape then look no further than private health insurance. You can buy that directly or get it from an employer-sponsored group insurance plan. That's right. The healthcare system is unnecessarily entangled with employment in America. If you change jobs you could lose your healthcare plan. Isn't that just brilliant? Even if you directly buy healthcare not through an employer you still have to pay deductibles which can cost thousands. For example if your deductible is $3000 and you need an operation that costs $2500 your insurance won't pay for any of it. The insurance doesn't kick in until you pay over $3000. After the "policy period" it resets and you have to pay over $3000 again before your private insurance pays a nickel. All that only if you can get the private insurance to pay and of course they try to find any reason not to because it saves them money. And then after that you still might have coinsurance and copayments.
+
+## No Healthcare
+Also we can't forget the 27 million Americans that have no healthcare of any kind public or private in the middle of a pandemic. To make matters worse the US has no federally mandated paid sick leave and most states don't have it either. So if you're poor you get to make the choice between putting food on the table and potentially infecting others with a deadly virus and risking your own health. Being uninsured makes you always financially vulnerable. You're always 1 medical emergency away from bankcruptcy or drowning in medical expenses you'll have to slave away to pay off for the next 2 decades. And that's not even counting the underinsured.
+
+# Sicko
+Every other major country on earth guarantees healthcare access to every citizen. It's morally incomprehensible that in the year 2021 the US still hasn't universalized healthcare.
+
+In the documentary film Sicko Michael Moore does a great job of comparing the US healthcare system with healthcare in the rest of the civilized world by showcasing the wastefulness and cruelty of the US system. You can find criticism of the film on Wikipedia[1]. Keep in mind health insurance companies with billions of dollars ran a campaign to discredit the film. Given that, I take the criticisms with a grain of salt. The thrust of the film is accurate regardless: America has a broken healthcare system and fixing it is a moral imperative.
+
+[Link below]
+Documentary Link[2]
+
+The only comment I would make is the film (2007) is slightly dated because past president Barack Obama has since passed a major piece of legislation called the Affordable Care Act[3] (Obamacare) which was designed to address the gaps in America's healthcare system. It has improved healthcare access in the United States. If you want to catch up on American healthcare you should read about it after watching the film. President-elect Joe Biden promoted the public option which offers public healthcare to everyone as a federal program (Bidencare) forcing private insurers to compete with the government. Not as good as Bernie's Medicare for All which would catch us up with the rest of the civilized world but Bidencare would at least be better than what we have now assuming he actually goes forward with it and it doesn't end up being watered down.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Sicko#Response](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Sicko#Response)
+[2: https://michaelmoore.com/movies/sicko/](https://michaelmoore.com/movies/sicko/)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act)
diff --git a/content/post/documentary-the-norden-prison.md b/content/post/documentary-the-norden-prison.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b787aae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/documentary-the-norden-prison.md
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+---
+title: "[Documentary] The Norden: Prison"
+date: 2021-02-03T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Norden
+The Norden[1] is a documentary series made in 2014 first aired by Finland's national public broadcasting company YLE[2]. It presents the Nordic welfare model from an outsider's perspective. The first episode looks at the Norwegian prison system. It captures so much of what's wrong with "tough" prisons like those in America and most importantly it shows a better alternative. It promotes a prison model based on rehabilitation, not revenge. You can watch it for free on archive.org:
+
+[Link below]
+https://archive.org/details/TheNordenS01E01-Prison[3]
+
+# Philosophy
+Prison reform is a subject I'm very passionate about. It is an urgent moral necessity to address the pointless suffering that goes on in tough prisons. What's wrong with tough prisons? Simply put, tough prisons are based on falsehoods, disregard for historical data, incoherent philosophy, and confused ideas about human psychology. The term fractal wrongness[4] is a perfect descriptor.
+
+In The Norden documentary, retired prison warden James Conway of Attica State Prison[5] in New York travels to 4 Nordic prisons to see how they operate. Now I don't want to pick on him in particular but I do want to use him as an example because he perfectly embodies everything wrong with American prisons. So for the rest of this post I'm going to take quotes from Mr. Conway in the documentary, explain what he gets wrong and why the US and other countries should immediately transition to Norwegian-style prisons.
+
+# James Conway
+## Bad Philosophy
+> "New York State and the department of correctional services are not responsible for you being an inmate. And that means you put yourself here. Don't blame the department. Don't blame the staff. Don't blame the judge. Don't blame society. It was your actions that put yourself here...A lot of folks unfamiliar with prisons think that it's the prison's job to make sure this person comes out as a law-abiding citizen and those of us in prison realize that's not the case." -- James Conway
+
+This quote is based on bad philosophy. Specifically it's based on the believe that people possess libertarian free will. I've already talked at length about how free will is incoherent[6]. For someone to have free will and be ultimately responsible for their actions would be circular[7].
+
+This bad philosophy regarding free will is related to confusion about the self[8]. For example, in a sense there's not really such a thing as a chair. There are legs, a seat and armrests and when they are put together a certain way in space and used for sitting, we call the result a "chair". But if you only stand on it to reach high places it might be a "step stool". Point being "chair" and "stool" are mere nouns. They aren't the real thing because reality isn't words. The same is true of the nouns "I", "self", "ego" and "person".
+
+To say of inmates "It was your actions that put yourself here." and the thinking that it's their responsibility to change themselves is to be confused about the self. Who is the "you" that put yourself there and who is the "you" that got put there? Who is the "you" that is doing the changing and who is the "you" that is being changed? It makes no sense. Of course people can change but there's a contradiction in assigning ultimate blame to inmates.
+
+I don't want to make this whole post a lecture about free will and self. For that you can read 2 sections of my other post on free will responsibility[9] and justice[10]. For those of you who think I'm just intellectualizing[11] to make excuses for inmates, I'm not. People should admit their past mistakes. They should make an effort to improve. They just shouldn't be thought of as ultimately responsible. Maybe there is a sense in which they are responsible, but not ultimately. Moving on.
+
+## Double Standards
+James Conway explains to Jarmo Haavisto, Assistant Director of Hameenlinna Prison, how cells are searched in Attica:
+
+> James Conway: "I would search the bed first. Totally top to bottom it comes off and then leave that in a pile and then go around the room systematically and put everything on the bed that I'm frisking, so that when she came back in all of her property would be right here on the bed."
+Jarmo Haavisto: "So you don't put them back where they were?"
+James Conway: "That's her job."
+Apparently the ultimate responsibility for your own actions doesn't apply to guards. According to Conway it's okay for guards to search a cell displacing all the inmate's belongings but then it's the inmate's responsibility to put all the items back. It seems self-contradictory. As a proponent of ultimate responsibility for your own actions why wouldn't it be the guard's responsibility to put all the inmate's items back given they're the one who displaced them? Seems like a double standard.
+
+## Hyperfixation on Punishment
+At Svartsjö minimum security prison there was an incident where an inmate didn't consent to being on camera by putting a hood over his head.
+
+> Journalist: "James seems a bit absentminded. He just can't get over the incident with the inmate during our arrival."
+James Conway: "Would this be a good time to talk about the guy with the white hood this morning?"
+Prison staff: "Yeah sure."
+James Conway: "We would never allow an individual to cover their face...he would be called in and he would be given some kind of a sanction for that episode this morning. If he likes to walk every day, he wouldn't walk for 5 days."
+> Journalist: "What if it's right to be more therapeutic? Would you have happier prisoners if you tried it you know their way?"
+James Conway: "No."
+Journalist: "Why not? Why are you so sure?"
+James Conway: "Our prisoners would try to manipulate the system. They misinterpret kindness for weakness."
+I'm no prison warden but I'm sure the prisoner wasn't just trying to make an issue. The audio in the film presents a man who just didn't want to be on camera and didn't trust the film crew to blur out his face. He wasn't acting violently. Yet Mr. Conway's response to this was that the inmate shouldn't be allowed to go on walks for 5 days. Conway later video calls a colleague who laughs about the idea of inflicting harsh deprivation on the inmate for an extremely minor dispute. This leads us straight into the next topic.
+
+## Lack of Compassion
+> "The inmate has given up his right to be in society by violating the law, by violent crime, by committing murder, by committing rape. That person shouldn't be coddled, shouldn't be given a situation where we're concerned about how they would feel if somebody was to walk by their cell and see them on the toilet. Who cares how they feel." -- James Conway
+Who cares how they feel? Someone made a mistake so it's okay to disregard their feelings? It's okay to treat them as subhuman because they broke the law? Isolating them from society is done because it's necessary to protect society. But not giving them privacy while using the toilet? If that's not cruel and unusual punishment[12] then I don't know what is.
+
+Inmates are human beings. It doesn't matter what they've done. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect just like everyone else. It's that simple.
+
+## Cherry Picking
+One of the reasons we have more people in jail in the United States than any other country is we throw people in jail for things that wouldn't justify incarceration[13] elsewhere. US prisons are filled with nonviolent drug offenders, victims of the war on drugs which should never have been waged in the first place[14]. There wouldn't be as many violent drug offenders either if not for the war on drugs.
+
+Mr. Conway doesn't mention any of that. Like a true radical individualist[15], he shrugs off societal influences, such as poverty and poor education, which we know based on evidence push people into a lives of crime. Instead he cherry picks the criminals we have the least sympathy for. That is, murderers and rapists.
+
+## Disregard for Evidence (Dogmatism)
+Mr. Conway claims we shouldn't care about how inmates feel and they shouldn't be coddled. But how does he know that? What logic did he use to take the step from "The inmate has given up his right to be in society by violating the law, by violent crime..." to "That person shouldn't be coddled, shouldn't be given a situation where we're concerned about how they would feel..."? How did he go about determining that?
+
+People with Mr. Conway's attitude would probably say it's self-evident. Isn't it obvious they shouldn't be treated well? After all they committed a crime. To that I would give the same general answer I give to all moral questions: What do you care about?[16]. I care about minimizing the number of people in prison. I care about people getting better even if that means we have to treat them better than their victims would approve of. I care about the evidence and results from the Nordic prison system as compared to other systems.
+
+It really comes down to your values. If you value living in a society where where you don't have millions of citizens going through the rotating door of prison, poverty and crime more than any other country, where you don't punish and degrade people for the sake of it, where people getting better is more important than revenge, then the best working example of that is the Nordic prison model and you should want to shift other countries closer towards it.
+
+Just ask Christer Karlsson, an ex-criminal that served 27 years in a Norwegian prison:
+
+> Journalist: "And is that a good thing that they are soft?"
+Christer Karlsson: thinking..."Yeah. I think it's good, to behave to treat people with human thinking. I think it's good. Because if you are treat them badly they be badly more badly by themself. Do some more awful crime when they come out."
+If you only value retribution, punishing people even though all the evidence shows it causes them to become more hardened criminals in the future making society less safe with mass incarceration and recidivism paid for at the taxpayers' expense, inmates becoming more antisocial not getting the help they need just to fulfill a dogmatic fantasy based on nothing and in contradiction with our current understanding of the brain[17], the self[18], modern psychology and sociology, then punishment is the way to go.
+
+## Red Herring
+When Mr. Conway saw a unit inside the maximum security Halden prison he said this:
+
+> "I would think the crime victims would be opposed to this type of living arrangement for the criminal." -- James Conway
+To use the same words for victims that Mr. Conway used to describe inmates: "Who cares how they feel". I thought it was the department of correctional services, not the department of victim's feelings. We should try to cultivate compassion for those who have wronged us, not be bent on getting revenge.
+
+> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
+
+## Budget
+> "When you have an unlimited budget their models fine and it's all wine and roses..." -- James Conway
+The budget is actually be a valid concern in the small scale. American prisons are overcrowded and underfunded. The Nordics have better social services than the US and universal healthcare which means they have better resources to handle mentally ill people before they end up in prison, prison is treated more as a last resort, they don't lock up so many people for victimless crimes and their people are better educated giving them better opportunities.
+
+There is much to be said about differences in the cultural environment between the US and the Nordics. Certainly poverty, economic inequality and mental illness needs to be taken more seriously in the US if we want to have as much success as Nordic prisons. Some people use that as an excuse for why the US can't have Nordic prisons. I strongly disagree. America is the richest country in the history of the world. We can absolutely fix our social problems, but there needs to be the political will to do so.
+
+Besides even within the social constraints of the US both North Dakota and Oregon[19] have already started implementing the Nordic philosophy in their prisons and seen positive results and Amend.us[20] is working to import the Nordic prison model into the US. There's no good excuse not to fix our broken prison system. "Change is hard" is not a good reason. Inmates are hurting and there is a moral imperative to remedy that.
+
+## All or Nothing Thinking
+> "I think when the incident happens down the road they're gonna have to make some changes. Everybodys not going to go along with their treatment plan that we're doing this to help you. Somebodys gonna go against the grain. There's always a case." -- James Conway
+Of course "everybody" won't go along with the prison changes. But in Norway the recidivism rate is 20% while it's 75% in the US. There's several reasons that's not a perfectly fair comparison. Some of them I mention above when I talked about cultural differences. But as North Dakota and Oregon have shown, it's not all the fault of the social environment in the US.
+
+Mr. Conway is basically saying that 4 out of 20 prisoners reoffending isn't better than 15 out of 20 because it's not 0. His implicit message seems to be "If the Nordic system fails even for one inmate then it'll have to revert to being a tough US prison". Only someone who is obsessed with punishing every slight would fail to appreciate the relative success of the Nordic system. Clearly Mr. Conway is obsessed with punishing every slight because he thought it was appropriate to force an inmate to stay inside and not walk for a week just because he didn't want to be on camera.
+
+I'll end this post with a quote from Russian novelist and philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky[21]:
+
+> "A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals." -- Dostoyevsky
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://thetvdb.com/series/the-norden](https://thetvdb.com/series/the-norden)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Yle](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Yle)
+[3: https://archive.org/details/TheNordenS01E01-Prison](https://archive.org/details/TheNordenS01E01-Prison)
+[4: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Attica_Correctional_Facility](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Attica_Correctional_Facility)
+[6: /2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
+[7: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)
+[8: /2020/05/02/the-self](../../../../2020/05/02/the-self/)
+[9: /2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2#responsibility](../../../../2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/)
+[10: /2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2#justice](../../../../2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/)
+[11: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Intellectualization](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Intellectualization)
+[12: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment)
+[13: https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf](https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf)
+[14: /2020/11/08/legalize-all-drugs](../../../../2020/11/08/legalize-all-drugs/)
+[15: https://www.shondaland.com/act/news-politics/a34729330/the-radical-individualism-raging-throughout-america/](https://www.shondaland.com/act/news-politics/a34729330/the-radical-individualism-raging-throughout-america/)
+[16: /2020/10/11/metaethics](../../../../2020/10/11/metaethics/)
+[17: /2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
+[18: /2020/05/02/the-self](../../../../2020/05/02/the-self/)
+[19: https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2019/10/11/states-put-norway-style-prison-reforms-to-work/1682876001/](https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2019/10/11/states-put-norway-style-prison-reforms-to-work/1682876001/)
+[20: https://amend.us/](https://amend.us/)
+[21: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky)
diff --git a/content/post/dont-call-people-homophobic-transphobic-or-islamophobic.md b/content/post/dont-call-people-homophobic-transphobic-or-islamophobic.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bbcd0df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/dont-call-people-homophobic-transphobic-or-islamophobic.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Don't Call People Homophobic, Transphobic, or Islamophobic"
+date: 2022-03-27T00:00:02
+draft: false
+---
+The suffix "phobia" implies an irrational fear of something. If you have arachnophobia, that means you have an irrational fear of spiders. It doesn't mean you're ideologically opposed to spiders. That's why I don't like the words homophobia, transphobia, or islamophobia. Despite their suffix, those words aren't used to mean irrational fear. They indicate dislike and hatred, which isn't the same thing at all.
+
+It's possible to fear something or be uncomfortable with it without being against it. Radical social justice warriors (SJWs) ignore this distinction and act as if being uncomfortable around or afraid of homosexuals, trans people, and muslims is equivalent to being anti-gay, anti-trans, and anti-muslim. Fear and hate often do go together, but they don't necessarily.
+
+SJWs conflate fear/disgust and hate at their own peril. People are labeled anti-gay just because they don't like to see two men kissing. We lose people who would otherwise be in support of homosexuality because the only people they can turn towards for understanding are people who actually hate gays.
+
+To clear this confusion up, we should use the suffixes "ism" and "ist" instead of "phobia". Instead of saying "homophobic" to mean "gay-hating", we should use the terms "antihomosexualist", "antihomosexualism", or simply "antigay" instead. For opposition to trans rights, we can use "antitransgenderist", "antitransgenderism", or simply "antitrans".
+
+The word "islamophobia" is doubly misleading. Despite the prefix "islam", it actually means anti-muslim. Islam is a despicable religion that decent people should ideologically oppose.[1] Being anti-Islam is totally different from being anti-muslim. So I propose the terms "antimuslimism" and "antimuslimist" instead.
+
+Language affects how we think[2], so we should be careful what words we include in our vocabulary. Are there any other words we should change? Let me know what you think.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: The "Religion of Peace"](https://thereligionofpeace.com)
+[2: Linguistic Relativity](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)
diff --git a/content/post/dont-let-cannabis-dispensaries-scan-your-id.md b/content/post/dont-let-cannabis-dispensaries-scan-your-id.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..64e0bdc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/dont-let-cannabis-dispensaries-scan-your-id.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: "Don't Let Cannabis Dispensaries Scan Your ID"
+date: 2021-10-06T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+So there's 2 problems with allowing cannabis dispensaries to scan your ID (for US citizens):
+
+# Problem 1: Cannabis is federally illegal
+If old white anti-progressive assholes regain control of the federal government, they can compel dispensaries to hand over their customer databases. When that happens, you're liable to federal prosecution.
+
+# Problem 2: Consumer surveillance is an injustice
+I've written about how to avoid consumer surveillance before[1]. The biggest thing is not identifying yourself. Some places of business require ID, which is not a problem as long as only a human is reading it. But if your ID gets scanned, it might be put into a database, creating a digital record of your purchase. This is an injustice and the first problem that I pointed out is just a consequence of this initial injustice. Yet another reason why we must make it illegal for businesses to collect personalized data about people.
+
+The problem from the perspective of cannabis dispensaries is depending on the state, it may be mandatory for dispensaries to scan ID and even put it into a state database. If you live in a state which requires ID scanning, avoiding dispensaries altogether is the only way to avoid surveillance (and possible future prosecution). If your state doesn't force dispensaries to scan ID, then look for ones that don't scan.
+
+# Why ID Scanning Doesn't Make Any Sense
+Based on what I've read, alcohol is worse for your health than cannabis. It also causes more societal problems. For instance driving high is probably less dangerous than driving drunk. With cannabis being safer than alcohol in every way, it just doesn't make any sense that there's ID scanning of cannabis purchases and not alcohol.
+
+Cannabis legalization is good. One step closer to ending the failed war on drugs. But states have got to respect cannabis users' right to privacy and end the ID scanning requirement.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Avoiding Consumer Surveillance](../../../../2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance)
diff --git a/content/post/dont-record-others-without-permission.md b/content/post/dont-record-others-without-permission.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4934729
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/dont-record-others-without-permission.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+title: "Don't Record Others Without Permission"
+date: 2021-03-29T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Right to Privacy
+We've lost the right to personal privacy to a large extent thanks to the ever-expanding corporate surveillance state. The surveillance state we all live under is getting increasing attention from non-mainstream media sources. However, something that doesn't make the non-mainstream news is the privacy we voluntarily take away from each other by recording people without their permission.
+
+# How it used to be
+This is very recent history so many of you reading this will have similar experiences. When I was in early primary school most people had dumb phones. They didn't have mobile phones with a built-in camera. From early primary school to middle and high school (in the United States) I watched smartphones with cameras become increasingly common and eventually got one myself. Not only were there more cameras, but their audio and video quality improved dramatically. It wasn't vague blurry media any more. Rewatching a recording was as if you were there yourself.
+
+People don't consider how big of a deal this is. Before camera phones, if there was a fight or some other incident in a school cafeteria, only that lunch group saw it. Actually only the few students crowded closely around even got a good look at it until school staff broke it up. That lunch group would tell their friends about it who told their friends and so on. Details of the fight would get added on, ommitted and changed as the gossip spread. Only the few students that watched it were sure of what happened. The rest was hearsay. There was no video recording. It didn't end up on social media. The students were disciplined and that was the end of that. That degree of privacy has been lost.
+
+# How it is now
+If the same incident happened today, consider how it might be different. Now there's a fair chance a student might have pulled out their high-resolution smartphone camera, recorded the incident and shared it until it ended up on social media where the corporate surveillance state would pick it up. There would be a perfect digital copy of what transpired that day, shared with the whole world. It might hurt future employment prospects of either student. It could follow either student across schools should they attend a different school. School administrators could try to get students to take the video down, but they could never be certain all the copies were deleted.
+
+Even if it were never posted to social media, if it ended up on a single phone that gave a single Big Brother app permission to see it, the corporate surveillance state might acquire the footage anyway. It could be automatically synced to crApple iCloud or Goolag Photos. Keep in mind all of this could happen without the knowledge or consent of the involved parties. This is very bad.
+
+# Chilling Effect
+I don't want to limit the discussion to just schools either. I'm talking about everywhere. The knowledge that you can be recorded at any time in public is bound to produce a chilling effect. Better never say anything you don't mean because someone might record it and the internet political correctness mob will cancel you, you'll never get hired and people you don't even know will judge you for a mistake that comprised 2 millions of a percent of your life. It's complete insanity.
+
+I don't have a perfect solution for what to do about this, but it's clearly less than ideal. Camera phones aren't going away any time soon. Banning phones from schools infringes on student's right to information and makes schools outdated. It causes a host of other problems too and doesn't fix the privacy problem because same incident might happen in a public park where anyone is free to videotape it.
+
+# Social Norm 1
+It would be extremely dangerous for the government to strictly regulate what citizens are allowed to record. Perhaps a better way to mitigate the privacy problem caused by everyone having mobile smartphones with cameras on their person is to make it a strict social taboo to record others without their permission. To record another person having a bad day or distressed or shouting things they don't mean out of pure frustration and send it to others or upload it online for internet points is perverse, even if said person is in the wrong. People change. People improve. But that footage won't reflect that and it lasts forever. How would you like for the rest of your life to be about the worst thing you ever said or did? Would that be just?
+
+Of course there would be many exceptional circumstances. Video recordings are sometimes important. Police officers and public officials should be subject to recording just as covert investigations may require recording others without their knowledge or consent. What should happen to the recording after an investigation concludes for example is equally deserving of its own discussion and has been discussed by groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation[1] in the context of police bodycams[2]. Then there are cases where recording others is important, but there are steps that should be taken before the footage is shared with anyone. Media coverage of protests is vital, but video footage can be used to identify the protestors. At a minimum, faces and identifiable markings should be blurred out to protect protestor identities.
+
+So that's one side of the equation. Society needs a taboo against recording people without permission except under extenuating circumstances. The norm should be not to record people without permission, where permission means informed consent. If you lie about the reasons you want to record someone or what you plan to do with the recording, you've obtained bastardized consent, not real informed consent. There can't be informed consent if the other party isn't informed.
+
+One last note about consent to record someone is that it's very tricky if you're in a position of power over the other person. In some circumstances it may not even be possible for the other person to be fully informed. Alzheimer's patients can't give ongoing informed consent because they forget why they're being recorded. Recording a person with Schizoaffective disorder or Dissassociative Identity Disorder is also highly suspect. In what sense is it consent if a person doesn't have an accurate model of the world? Is it really consent if the person being recorded isn't the same person that gave consent? These are tough questions and there are no easy answers.
+
+Mental illnesses aren't the only reason informed consent can be impossible. It might be impossible if there's a large knowledge gap between the person recording and the person being recorded. Take Facecrook for instance. The average person has absolutely no idea how powerful Facecrook's A.I. systems (or their data brokers' A.I. systems) can get. It was used to manipulate an entire election it's so powerful, but the average Facecrook user has no clue how that could even be accomplished and can't even hope to understand those systems. Is that really informed consent? Some people have argued it was okay for Facecrook to manipulate the U.S. election in 2016, morally speaking, because the users clicked "I agree" years ago when they made their account. That's so absurd. 99% of Facecrook users couldn't have possibly known what Cambridge Analytica did was possible or the implications of it. It's especially not informed consent if you know the person whose data you're collecting can't understand the full implications of how it's used.
+
+Recording another person is only morally just when you have consent and the other person fully understands what the recording is being used for and all the ramifications. If both of those conditions are met, then it should be morally just to do the recording, barring extraneous circumstances I already mentioned.
+
+# Social Norm 2
+There is a second side to the equation when it comes to recording people. It is basically the antithesis of cancel culture. We can create the norm of disregarding or refusing to watch footage of people that were obviously recorded without their knowledge or consent. Again, this admits to extraneous circumstances, but the general rule still stands.
+
+Imagine a man in a fast food place that starts shouting and treating the workers poorly. Is he like this all the time or is he just having a very bad day? Who knows. Perhaps his son just died yesterday and he doesn't know how to process it. Even if that's just the way he normally is, regularly treating service workers poorly, what good comes of recording the situation and posting it online? Shaming people generally makes them spiteful and angry. It doesn't usually invoke their self-reflective, compassionate capacity within them. Maybe nothing would, but recording someone in a bad moment and uploading it to the internet, stoking an online hate mob to destroy their public image, that's only going to be counterproductive.
+
+This is why I strongly dislike cancel culture. It's hate-based. It's not about giving people the benefit of the doubt. It's not about considering their capacity to become better or change. Of course having a bad day or trying to get past a horrible life event doesn't license you to be rude to people. But that's really a confused way of looking at it. It's not about "license" to treat people badly. People who think it is don't understand free will[3].
+
+The fact is, for whatever reason, you have a man treating a service worker badly. But even if he has no excuse, he isn't ultimately responsible for the way his brain is wired which inevitably pushed him into being rude to the service worker. If he were responsible for his brain wiring, that would be circular. Point being that this cancel culture of making people lose their job and lose respect should be replaced with "compassion culture". We ought to find ways to be compassionate and help those who mistreat others rather than shaming and wanting the worst for them. Wanting people to fail and to be shamed and to hurt is a sick desire and people who possess it themselves require our empathy and compassion.
+
+# Conclusion
+The examples I've given of people being recorded when they don't want to be are situations where it would directly negatively affect the person being recorded. This isn't always the case. If you're vlogging walking down a public sidewalk, you're not recording anyone in particular on purpose, but you are recording others without their consent. You should at least put black boxes over them in editing so they can't be identified on video at any point in the future by A.I. Blurring someone out might not be sufficient to prevent future automated systems from identifying them.
+
+The point is not only to combat cancel culture which feeds off one time incidents in people's worst moments, but to combat the ever-expanding surveillance state abused to manipulate and control the populace. We can and should create new social norms which restore a degree of personal privacy reminiscent of the times before mobile smartphones existed.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.eff.org/](https://www.eff.org/)
+[2: https://www.eff.org/pages/body-worn-cameras](https://www.eff.org/pages/body-worn-cameras)
+[3: /2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
diff --git a/content/post/dont-use-github.md b/content/post/dont-use-github.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3979930
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/dont-use-github.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Don't Use Github"
+date: 2021-05-31T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Why is Free Software Being Hosted on Github???
+Free software being hosted on Github as its main repository is a downright embarrassment to the very principles free software is supposed to stand for. Github is a proprietary platform. Important site features can't work without proprietary Javascript running in the browser. The backend code for Github is completely proprietary. And it's owned by Micro$oft, one of the largest megacorps to ever exist whose CEO once called GNU/Linux a "cancer" and only changed his tune when he realized there was money to be made.
+
+You can see more criticism of Github here:
+[Tom Ryder's Blog](https://sanctum.geek.nz/why-not-github.html)
+
+As a user of software and someone that occasionally writes software, I have a lot more respect for your project if it's not hosted on Github. There are so many other code hosting platforms out there! There's Gitlab, Gitea, Gogs, Cgit and Gitweb. Hell, you don't even need a code hosting repository! If you can't self-host and don't want to trust third-party platforms, just use Git's git-format-patch command and submit changes by email.
+
+Having a single large megacorp whose primary business model is diametrically opposed to free software being the largest code host for free software is almost too dumb. Micro$oft is the worst possible entity to entrust to run the platform where you manage development of your free software projects. If you're using Github to host your code, migrate elsewhere immediately.
+
+# Other Code Repositories
+If you choose to migrate to Gitlab.com, that's still pretty centralized since it's one of the largest code hosting platforms. But at least Gitlab doesn't require non-free Javascript, its backend is fully free and it's not owned by Micro$oft. Also, self-hosting is very easy if you have the resources. I recommend reading the GNU repo criteria evaluation page before you make your choice where to migrate:
+[https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html](https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html)
+
+# Harm Reduction
+I can't recommend Github since it requires non-free Javascript, but if you're going to use it anyway, don't use it for project management. At the most, use it as a backup to mirror your code hosted on a different, ethical repository. But don't rely on it otherwise. It's the last place you should trust with your code.
+
+# Take Action!
+I really hope you don't just agree with me and go on using Github anyway. Please don't do that. Take action! Even if you've been managing your repository on Github and you have dozens of issues and pull requests, making the transition will be worth the effort. It shows your commitment to software freedom and says to the other developers "Github is not an acceptable place for a free software project". For most of you reading this, the process of migrating all your code won't take more than an hour. Just pick a different, freedom-respecting platform to host your code and go get it done!
diff --git a/content/post/doublethink.md b/content/post/doublethink.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..53ca802
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/doublethink.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+title: "Doublethink"
+date: 2020-06-14T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Quick Note
+As a quick note, what people post online is often taken as something they will forever agree with and are forever held to. This is unreasonable. There needs to be some equivalent of forgiveness if one posts something horrible online, but that's a topic for another post. I'm not saying people aren't responsible for what they post. But I am saying we should aspire to take the most charitable interpretation of what people post if we care about advancing the conversation. Obviously a person's character is a factor in how you interpret what they post.
+
+On my blog, I want to retain the right to post not only ideas that I understand well. But I also want the freedom to talk about things I'm not sure about. That means I run the risk of being wrong. No one posting their ideas online openly should expect to be immune to criticism. Criticism comes with the territory. But I want to say I'm interested in sharing ideas. If it's clear to me you're only interested in taking my words out of context, twisting what I write or using cheap gotcha's because I didn't state something perfectly, then I probably won't respond. If you want clarification about anything I discuss, visit my about page[1] for contact details. With that cleared up, let's move on to the meat of this post.
+
+# Caring What Others Think
+Most people are going around supremely concerned with what other people think of them. People convince themselves they don't care about what others think, almost as a badge of honor. If someone tells you this, express disbelief as a test. If they insist they don't care, then you might say they care enough about what you think to try to convince you that they don't. If I get any emails from people who insist they don't, I'll probably find it funny because it only serves to further my point. Humans are social animals. It's pretty well baked into all of us to be concerned with what other people think. Our brains have the capacity for theory of mind not by accident. It keeps us all in check so to speak. This is especially true if you're around a lot of people, in a densely populated city like NYC for example. You literally have less room to think without the input of others.
+
+## Meeting Expectations
+There is no shortage of outside influences telling us how we ought to think, feel, and behave. In Japan, due to the influence of social conformity, tiger parenting[2] and strict societal expectations to perpetual the status quo, there are over a million hikikomoris[3] in Japan. For those who don't know, a hikikomori is a reclusive person who undergoes self-isolation for extended periods of time. This could be months or years even. There are surely other contributing factors to hikikomoris such as psychiatric disorders[4], but I want to focus on social conformity.
+
+In an extremely socially conformist culture where differences are not well-tolerated, is it any surprise that young Japanese are rejecting it, opting to live in isolation? Japanese children are often being crushed under the weight of parent's and peer's expectations, especially in education. Some hikikomoris attended "cram schools", or juku. Ikuo Amano, professor of Sociology at the University of Tokyo said "It's not healthy for kids to have so little free time. It is not healthy to become completely caught up in competition and status at such a young age". In some cases in cram schools, Japanese children spend almost all their waking hours short of basic biological needs cramming. This is not good for their emotional or physical well-being. It's not allowing enough room for the individual to flourish.
+
+## Feeling the Right Way
+### Men's Feelings
+I have to add a disclaimer that not everyone is ready to face their repressed emotions head on. For example, veterans suffering from PTSD should not try to revisit the bad memories alone. That is where the role of a therapist comes in. They can gently guide you to facing your fears, in a professional setting. This goes for anyone who faces emotional trauma.
+
+I'm not sure how true this is across different cultures, so I'll speak on behalf of my own. There is something very misguided that young men are still taught in the US. I see the situation improving. Younger generations are becoming more aware of this, but it's still a very present part of American culture. There is a taboo against boys and men displaying any negative emotion, except anger or maybe dissatisfaction. Displaying upset, sadness, depression, or anxiety is "unmanly". Men talking to each other about their feelings is very taboo in our culture still. We have the phrase "man up". Don't you know men don't cry? Men don't complain. Be a man. This is a dangerous thing to impart to young boys because bottled up emotions end up coming out somehow. And better to have emotions coming out through tears than self-destructive habits or violence.
+
+There is a huge pressure on men not to display emotions, to outright pretend their emotions don't even exist, and to never talk about their problems. And it would serve us all well to change that extremely toxic part of our culture. There will be men who read and agree, yet still won't feel comfortable showing emotions because it's ingrained in the culture. You will be judged by other men for showing emotions. You might even lose your "man card", respect from other men in the community.
+
+There is this strange idea given to us by society which is this: If you show your emotions, if you cry, if you get upset and display it, then you aren't in control. You don't have a lid on it. This is completely backwards. In fact, the only way to manage so called negative feelings is to not push them away. It's to allow yourself to feel them. By pushing negative emotions away, you push away a part of yourself. I'm not saying one should dwell on negative events in one's life. But if they keep coming up in your mind, don't necessarily push them away. If you distract yourself from them, you might succeed temporarily in not dealing with how you feel. But if you always do that and never face yourself, it will degrade your mental stability and your quality of life.
+
+### Being Happy
+Besides the taboo against men's emotions, there is also a taboo that applies to everyone. It is the taboo against being sad. I have to add another disclaimer here that I'm not talking about someone that is severely depressed. People with depression should get professional help. I'm not trying to give advice that treats or cures mental illness. I'm not saying people shouldn't seek out what makes them happy in life. I'm talking about the natural state of every person of being sad sometimes. No one is happy all the time. In my experience, most people are vaguely discontent most of the time.
+
+The idea is pushed on people by society that they ought to never be sad or anxious. Cheer up, don't be a negative nancy, don't be a party pooper, don't worry, be happy, don't be mad, and just relax. This is a form of doublethink. It is commanding someone to do something that can't be forced. It's as if you told someone to grow their hair faster, or beat their heart faster. If you pay very close attention, the physical sensations of stress and happiness have a very similar profile. It's not the sensation of sadness itself that's so bad. It's what we think it means, because society has told us that it's not a good thing to be sad. Why not? It's a necessary emotion that healthy people feel sometimes. Why not be content being sad? It's not the sensation of sadness that causes suffering. That's a myth. It's the aversion to sadness that causes the suffering.
+
+This is a message that is more often implicitly than explicitly pushed on us. You don't see sad people in advertisements. Everyone is always smiling. If you just buy this product, you'll be as happy as those in the advertisement! Except that never happens. The nature of the mind is to invent a new obstacle as soon as you overcome the current one. In the US, food service workers are expected to produce a fake smile and be overly kind to customers, even if it's not genuine. "Service with a smile", "enjoy your meal", and "Thank you for calling ...". I tune out when I hear these phrases because I know they're just socially mandated platitudes. It's a very sick thing about our culture that we are always expecting happiness. There needs to be more room to express sadness and discontent. Maybe if there was, we would have less food service workers spitting in people's food.
+
+The lesson here is if you allow yourself to feel how you actually feel, instead of how you've been told you are supposed to feel, you'll be in a much better position to manage your emotions.
+
+## Being a Good Person
+Society teaches us we have to be a good person. Do the right thing. Be kind to others. While being kind to others is useful if you have the same instrumental goals as the vast majority of the human species, that is goals that further other instrumental or ultimate goals, it is not useful for those who don't share those goals. It's just a mantra for them. If you share top goals that are typically associated with being a good person such as prosperity of the human race and other species and eliminating needless suffering, then you will naturally try to promote "good". If deep down, you sincerely don't care about anyone else at all and never will, you may be a psychopath.
+
+Society has taught as that being a psychopath is a very bad thing to be. It has a highly negative connotation. We tend to avoid associating with people we recognize as psychopaths since they are incapable of empathy or remorse. While genuine psychopaths are very rare, many completely neurologically typical people wouldn't like to see others succeed. They have particular people that they don't feel compassion or remorse for, that they hold a grudge against, and they come by that honestly. The families of Ted Bundy's victims probably felt great relief to see him electrocuted to death. This comes from a feeling of wanting revenge, not out of compassion. The compassionate view is that unfortunately someone whose values are incompatible with society ended up causing a lot of suffering. So I feel compassion for my own suffering and compassion for the victims for losing their lives and compassion for the perpetrator who, through being a victim of a chain of causality that wired his brain the way it did through his genes and upbringing, inevitably pushed him into becoming a serial killer.
+
+I'm not saying don't be a good person. If you really want the best for everyone, then feel free to promote goodness in the world. But if there are people you can't empathize with, that you can't relate to, then don't pretend to. Maybe try talking to them to get their perspective. It is yet another form of doublethink to feel that you must have compassion for all people. Entertain the idea that disliking people is okay. Maybe it is not a good guide to what you should do in regard to that person, but it's important that you accept your dislike of them, and not force yourself to like them. It's true that one can cultivate compassion for even someone who did horrible things like Ted Bundy or Hitler. But there is no "contest" of who can be the most compassionate person.
+
+## Being Nonjudgemental
+There is the idea that you shouldn't judge other people. "Don't judge" and "Love, not hate". Being judgemental is seen as a bad thing. What I think this means more precisely is not to look down on other people for the way they are or their actions. But this is doublethink at its finest. Because in the command "Don't judge", there is an assumption that judging is not a good thing to do. So if you believe in not judging others, then you cannot judge the judgemental either.
+
+Another reason this idea of not judging doesn't make sense is that you can't not judge others. It's not voluntary in any sense. It is not always appropriate to vocalize your judgement, but you cannot stop yourself from judging. It's easy for me to point out someone like Kim Jong Un that everyone judges to be a bad human being. But you may meet someone with Tourette Syndrome and think to yourself, "Wow, their verbal tics are really annoying. Why can't they shut up"? And next you think "I'm not supposed to feel that way. I know they can't help it. What's wrong with me"? This encapsulates the essence of doublethink. You feel like you're not allowed to find it annoying because the disabled can't help it.
+
+## First-Hand Story
+So far, this post has been very philosophical. So, I want to add in a personal story for concreteness. I once overheard a conversation between a student and a professor in his office. She was studying accounting. And she was absolutely struggling with it. She ended up audibly upset and crying about it. She didn't want to disappoint her parents by doing something else. I don't know how far along she was in her degree, but that gave me the impression that she already invested some effort into it. She hated accounting, but felt like that's what she had to do because of family pressure. This is a very common thing in my experience. Many students study just to avoid disappointing family, their main motivation not really being to learn. In her case though, it seemed like she just didn't like accounting.
+
+The professor gave her some really good advice. He told her that she doesn't want to be doing something she doesn't like to do for decades. And that she should consider what she really wants, instead of what other people have told her she should do. She listened intently and took his advice. If I remember correctly she ended up changing majors, but I didn't know her personally so I'm not certain. That was some very solid advice he gave her though.
+
+# Death
+I have to add yet another important disclaimer. I worry that some readers could take this section the wrong way and I really don't want that to happen. If you are suicidal, seek out professional help. I am not in any way condoning or encouraging suicide in this section. This is a purely philosophical discussion about the taboo of death. If someone you know has recently died or is dying, you might consider skipping ahead. If you are not mentally well or have depression, skip this section. It's not worth the risk of reading into it something I didn't intend. It's not necessary for the rest of this post to make sense. If you have any questions, feel free to email me[5]. With that out of the way, I'll continue.
+
+Death is perhaps one of the greatest taboos in our modern society. It is not something you bring up at the dinner table. People don't like to be reminded that they won't be here some day. There is a lot of anxiety around death. People generally avoid thinking about it. One benefit of believing in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism is that you get an afterlife or a next life. You never really have to die. To me, living for eternity is more terrifying. After a trillion billion years, I think anyone would have had enough. People don't consider how long forever really is.
+
+The fear of death, I believe, is largely taught. Children learn to be afraid of it from their parents, teachers and peers. For example, everyone is supposed to act solemn and sad at funerals. The dead are underground, cremated, or burned. Out of sight and out of mind. As another example, I've noticed people tend to have similar attitudes toward death as their parents and the prevailing culture. One thing that fascinates people about the joker character is that he doesn't take anything seriously. He makes a mockery of even death itself. Ask yourself, why be afraid of death? What is there to fear? Maybe your family needs you. You are afraid of their grief. That's fair. So then I ask, why be afraid of the fear of death? Fear is simply another sensation arising in the body. Are you afraid of the wind blowing against your skin? Then why be afraid of the feeling of fear? Why does it get a special status as opposed to any other feeling that passes by?
+
+# Wu Wei
+Where am I going with all this? I want to invite every reader to consider something. What would happen if you simply let go of all expectations society has of you? What would happen if you gave no thought to what others think of you? What if you forgot about being a good person, loving and not hating, being happy and not sad? What would happen if you allowed yourself to feel whatever you feel, without judging it? What would happen if you allowed your thoughts, emotions, and sensations to come and go like clouds in the sky without trying to label them? Healthy or unhealthy, good or bad, acceptable or taboo?
+
+## The Sky
+The sky is simply the space in which the clouds appear and dissapate. The sky does not follow the clouds. The sky does not push the clouds away. The sky simply allows the clouds to come and go. Consciousness is where thoughts, emotions, and sensations appear and dissapate. The sensation of being identified with your thoughts, is itself a sensation arising in consciousness. From an experiential perspective, there is nowhere outside of consciousness.
+
+You might object: "You said earlier one cannot resist caring about what others think. So how can I be like the sky if I can't stop judging my thoughts"? This is why they call it meditation practice. Non-attachment takes practice. And mindfulness meditation is one of the most effective ways to achieve that state. It's not always easy to let go, because you have been conditioned your whole life to be passionate and cling. If you can't resist judging your thoughts, then judge them. Just don't judge your judgements of your thoughts. Let your judgements of your thoughts pass like clouds in the sky. So on and so forth. With meditation, your mind will tire of thinking and judging everything all the time. You will become thoughtless. That doesn't mean you can't think when you need to. It means you won't be held hostage by the next so called negative thought you have. You can see you true nature, prior to any idea about who society has told you you are supposed to be. It is a state of nonjudgemental, pure awareness. Some people report getting the feeling that their mind is in complete harmony with all that is.
+
+This is not a state of mind you can force. It's a state of mind that comes about naturally as you practice meditation. It relates to the Chinese term "Wu Wei[6]". "Non-action" can be seen as not acting upon the contents of consciousness, nor judging them. It doesn't mean you are completely isolated from society. To me, it means not being so involved in society that you lose who you are. Being in a state of mindlessness might sound contrary to intellectualism, but that's a misunderstanding. The opposite is true. It's easier to think when your mind isn't getting in the way.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: /about](../../../../about/)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Tiger_parenting](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Tiger_parenting)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hikikomori](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hikikomori)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hikikomori#Psychiatric_disorders](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hikikomori#Psychiatric_disorders)
+[5: mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch](mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Wu_wei](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Wu_wei)
diff --git a/content/post/ego-traps.md b/content/post/ego-traps.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..52e218c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/ego-traps.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+title: "Ego Traps"
+date: 2020-08-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Ego
+Before I get into ego traps, I need to explain what the ego is. I made a post previously about the self[1]. But, for this post, I'm going to give a simple definition. Ego is the sensation of "I". Ego is your idea of yourself. When asked to describe yourself, the ego is what you're describing. The ego is your "persona" that you display not only to others, but that you yourself believe. It's incomplete. This has to be true because consciousness can never be an object of itself.
+
+Notice that I don't say it's inaccurate, just incomplete. You can never know exactly who you are. This is because, as far as we know, systems can't simulate themselves. It always leads to infinite regression. Let's use a computer system as a thought experiment.
+
+## Thought Experiment
+Let's say we want to build a computer system which perfectly simulates the universe. I mean the exact state and location of every atom, every gravitational wave, etc. We won't concern ourselves about practicalities like speed, power draw, the limits of physics, or how it gets the initial state of the universe. We are going to ignore quantum randomness and locality issues like quantum entanglement. I'm sure there are other quirks of physics I don't know about, but we are going to ignore all of those and assume the universe is far more Newtonian than it is. The point of this experiment doesn't depend on the actual universe being Newtonian. It's just to demonstrate a point.
+
+Our computer system will be located on earth. Picture an imaginary sphere around our galaxy. Outside of this sphere is what our computer simulates. It ignores the inside. The simulation gets inaccurate over time because the part which it isn't simulating (our galaxy) propogates light out at the speed of light away from us, affecting the simulation. But, since we are good system designers, we account for this. We program it so that the imaginary sphere automatically expands at the speed of light (the fastest information can travel in our universe). This means that the system does not try to simulate the slowly, ever-expanding sphere (our galaxy) in which it resides. We now have a perfectly accurate simulation of the universe, minus a relatively small expanding sphere.
+
+This is working fine, so let's upgrade the system. Now, it simulates the whole universe minus earth. We use the same solution as before, making an expanding sphere around the earth which it ignores. It will only take 8 minutes until that sphere touches the sun and we can no longer simulate the sun. Soon enough, we won't be able to simulate the solar system either, and it just gets worse from there. So, we upgrade the system again. Now, it simulates a sphere outside the building in which it sits. In no time flat, we already can't simulate the earth any more.
+
+How small can we shrink this sphere? The smallest we can make it is if our initial non-simulated volume is coterminous with the outline of our computer system. Perhaps we can even shrink it smaller if our system is very large and some parts don't come online immediately. But we can never create a perfect simulation with this strategy because we can't shrink the non-simulated area to zero. If we try to simulate the inside of our imaginary volume, then we get an infinite regression. If a system simulates itself, then it has to simulate the simulation of itself. And so on to infinity. Maybe this is somehow possible, but it doesn't seem so.
+
+# Returning to the Ego
+The brain is a kind of computer. Like the system described in the thought experiment above, the brain also has a model of itself. Some people know themselves very well and their model is very good, others seem to have no self-awareness at all. But no one can have a complete model of who they are. Therefore, you always have a mysterious element to yourself. I wanted to use a thought experiment to make the problem clear, but Alan Watts explained this idea in terms of a set of simpler analogies which advocate the same idea:
+
+> "Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth".
+> "You cannot touch the tip of this finger with the tip of this finger".
+
+I'm using the term "model of oneself" very loosely. Obviously we don't have to simulate all our neurons to know things about ourselves. There are other meaningful mental representations that we use to understand ourselves, such as the labels others give us. Yogis that spend years in caves can be compared to a system where the "sphere" of unawareness is kept very small. Yogis are some of the most self-aware members of our species in a manner of speaking. And humans are already the most self-aware species on earth. At the other end of the spectrum you have orangutans, chimps and gorillas. Some can pass the "mirror test", the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror. They are less self-aware, but the capacity is still there.
+
+## Ego Traps
+Assuming a high level of awareness is desirable, and I believe it is for almost everyone, there are some things to watch out for. They are called "ego traps". What they do is they take you from an aware and alert state of consciousness in touch with reality to one that is spellbound by thoughts, hardly perceiving the world around you. Perhaps only perceiving it enough not to bump into things. One thought after another, oftentimes negative and unproductive, with no ability to stop their steady flow. Ego traps are the "gateway thoughts" that get you started in this insane state of mind.
+
+The ego traps which everyone talks about are thoughts in the form of words. That's because words are all language allows us to use and everything else is simply referenced by the words. But keep in mind anything that is in consciousness can be an ego trap. The nature of each person's mind is different, so the ego traps they fall for are different. I just want to explicitly list a few common ones because once you get an idea of what you're looking for, it's easier not to be fooled. Here are a few:
+
+* Feeling superior or inferior to others.
+* Thinking you are enlightened.
+* Wanting to be perfectly safe and secure.
+* Always desiring happiness.
+* Thinking there is something missing in your life and chasing after it.
+* Needing to always be right.
+* Trying to control how other people act.
+* Needing the approval of someone else or society.
+
+I want to be clear that I'm not saying these desires are wrong to have or that myself and others who write about spirituality never have them. I'm saying they are often a gateway into a false sense of identity; your egoic identity. So, to be more aware, watch out for these thoughts. They can often enter in through the back door without you noticing, kicking off a chain reaction of other thoughts which create a grand myth. The ego likes to make up a grand cohesive story about who you are and it hopes you'll buy into it. The more you think about it and feed into its narrative, the more you identify with that story.
+
+How does this work? It's very simple. All that I have listed basically boils down to a feeling of something being missing in your life. If you pursue the approval of others, then you subconsciously think that you must need the approval of others. The harder you pursue others' approval, the more you feel you must need it. Otherwise, why would you be pursuing it, right? This is the rationalization your mind creates. This isn't to say that every instance of trying to gain someone's approval is bad or you shouldn't try. I'm saying be aware of those thoughts. If you want to be aware, don't pursue the approval of others without knowing that's what you're doing.
+
+Your sensation of identity takes the form of the thoughts you don't know you're having. The harder you pursue happiness, the more you will feel like you lack it. The more you always need to be right, the more you worry that you're not. The more you want to be safe and secure, the less safe and secure you will feel. It's okay to have desires. The desire to eat and continue living is necessary for survival. Just be aware of desire. Without the awareness, you take on a false sense of identity.
+
+# Hide and Go Seek
+The fundamental game of being is like the game of hide and go seek. We hide in the thoughts we don't know we're having. They become who we are. Then one day, something or someone wakes us up and we realize we were playing a game the entire time. This could take 10 seconds or 10 years depending on the person. But, the game goes on several times in a single human life, played out in a different way each time. Just imagine all the ways the game is being played across all of humanity. The game of being a good person and not an evil one. The game of seeking happiness. The game of seeking enlightenment. The game of chasing after something. The game of pretending things are serious, that you're not even playing a game. That's why we find the joker character so fascinating. He plays devil's advocate. While everyone is taking life deadly serious, he dares to treat it like a game. The Christian religion is an absolutely marvelous game. The stakes of the game are eternal bliss versus eternal damnation. Christianity is the version of the game taken to the extreme.
+
+Maybe I shouldn't publish this because I'm giving away a secret. I'm spoiling your opportunity to find out what it's all about on your own. As Alan Watts says, I've given the show away. The main idea I want to get across in this post is that if you want to stop playing "hide and go seek", if you want to stay found for a while, then you need awareness. And ego traps are the thoughts that pull you out of awareness, so watch out for them.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: /2020/05/02/the-self](../../../../2020/05/02/the-self/)
diff --git a/content/post/encryption-is-a-timer-not-a-lock.md b/content/post/encryption-is-a-timer-not-a-lock.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..01b4b4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/encryption-is-a-timer-not-a-lock.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+title: "Encryption is a Timer, Not a Lock"
+date: 2022-03-23T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Encryption is Not a Lock
+Encryption is often explained as a lock. When you lock a safe with your valuables inside it, only yourself and the others who are granted access can unlock it. It's not a perfect analogy. A determined thief can crack a safe. By contrast, as far as we know, it's impossible to decrypt securely encrypted data without the key.
+
+The lock analogy also breaks down in another way. When I think of an abstract lock, I imagine something that's secure now and will be secure in the future. But encryption won't necessarily be secure in the future. We could have Shor-capable quantum computers[1] soon or maybe mathematicians will figure out how to break cryptographic primitives[2].
+
+Historically, cryptography has had an expiration date. There are reasons to think that trend won't continue, but nobody knows the future for certain.
+
+# Encryption is a Timer
+Locks are a fine way to explain to laypeople the basics of encryption. But for everybody else, I have a timer analogy which is more true to the facts I just presented.
+
+This time, your safe uses a countdown timer controlled by a dial. When the time's up, the safe opens, so you twist the dial as far back as it goes. The dial has no labels or markings, so you don't know how long you have until time's up and your safe unlocks, giving anyone access to your valuables.
+
+# Why The Distinction Matters
+Why does this distinction even matter though? It only matters that encryption doesn't last if there's someone out there capturing encrypted internet traffic and waiting to decrypt it.
+
+According to Edward Snowden, whistleblower of the U.S. National Security Agency's illegal mass surveillance programs, NSA spent 80 million U.S. dollars trying to build a quantum computer that decrypts all internet traffic. See the research program Penetrating Hard Targets.
+
+It would be naive to think NSA isn't capturing encrypted internet traffic right now in hopes of one day decrypting it later.
+
+# What To Do About It
+Security experts are quick to point out that the NSA doesn't really need to decrypt our data. Metadata alone is sufficient for mass surveillance. They're right, but if the actual contents of the data didn't matter at all, they wouldn't have spent money trying to build a quantum computer.
+
+We all have a reason to resist mass surveillance[3], but how can we do that when NSA might be able to retroactively decrypt our internet activity in an unspecified length of time? Here's my take:
+
+Avoiding using the internet entirely isn't practical nor desirable, but it can be practical to avoid the internet for things that really need to stay private. For instance, maybe you partake in certain activities/meetings that your current or possible future government wouldn't approve of. You know the kind. If that's you, you'd be wise to avoid using the internet for that.
+
+I don't care if you use Signal. How do you know for certain those messages won't be decrypted in the future? Have your meetings in person, not online. Intelligencies agencies aren't made of magic. They cannot break secure protocols. But they will bug your hardware. They will use zero-day[4] exploits. And if you're really interesting, they'll use a bruteforce attack straight to your knees.
+
+Have your private meetings in the middle of a field without any cell phones. Prefer in-person communication over PGP[5] or Signal. Prefer conducting private transactions with cash, not Monero[6]. Despite all of today's fancy encryption, real life is still the most secure option.
+
+And lastly, if you've spent so much time online that you're unsure where to find Real Life, here's a Wikipedia article to help you out:
+
+[What is Real Life?](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Real_life#As_distinct_from_the_Internet)
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Shor's Algorithm](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm)
+[2: Cryptographic Primitive](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_primitive)
+[3: Raising The Bar On Privacy](../../../../2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy)
+[4: Zero-Day](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Zero-day_(computing))
+[5: Goodbye PGP](../../../../2022/01/03/goodbye-pgp)
+[6: Warning to Monero Users](../../../../2021/12/13/warning-to-monero-users)
diff --git a/content/post/essay-the-simulation-argument.md b/content/post/essay-the-simulation-argument.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8478dde
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/essay-the-simulation-argument.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: "[Essay] The Simulation Argument"
+date: 2020-12-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Nick Bostrom[1] proposes that we are living inside a computer simulation with a 1 in 3 probability. It's easy to get the basic idea of the argument, but it's also widely misunderstood. If you read it, read carefully.
+
+[Essay Link][2]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom)
+[2: https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html](https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html)
diff --git a/content/post/exposing-zoom.md b/content/post/exposing-zoom.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..574a048
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/exposing-zoom.md
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+---
+title: "Exposing Zoom"
+date: 2020-05-23T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Foreword
+I often feel like my posts can come off as preachy. So this post is going to be a different than usual. This time, I want to include more facts. This post is for the people that don't necessarily share my opinion that all software should be free (as in freedom). My hope is that this will speak to a wider audience.
+
+# Scale and Growth
+To start off, I want to give you an idea of the scale of Zoom. Zoom is a video and audio conferencing platform for desktop and mobile devices. According to Zoom's blog[1] from 22 April 2020, Zoom CEO Eric S. Yuan said in a webinar that Zoom has surpassed 300 million daily Zoom meeting participants. This does not mean that Zoom has 300 million active daily users, but 300 million participants in Zoom calls daily. For example, one user may participate in several Zoom meetings and be double-counted. So the 300 million does not correspond to the number of users. Nonetheless, 300 million is no small number. For comparison, the U.S. population is estimated to be about 329 million[2] during the time of this writing.
+
+But Zoom didn't always have such a huge user base. The Coronavirus pandemic causing people to work from home is what skyrocketed their numbers. According to Zoom's Blog post, "Usage of Zoom has ballooned overnight - far surpassing what we expected when we first announced our desire to help in late February. This includes over 90,000 schools across 20 countries that have taken us up on our offer to help children continue their education remotely. To put this growth in context, as of the end of December last year, the maximum number of daily meeting participants, both free and paid, conducted on Zoom was approximately 10 million. In March this year, we reached more than 200 million daily meeting participants, both free and paid. We have been working around the clock to ensure that all of our users new and old, large and small can stay in touch and operational...our platform was built primarily for enterprise customers large institutions with full IT support. These range from the world’s largest financial services companies to leading telecommunications providers, government agencies, universities, healthcare organizations, and telemedicine practices". Eric S. Yuan. (2020, April 1). Retrieved May 24, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom blog, https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/[3][4].
+
+# Terms of Service
+"ACCESSING THE ZOOM WEBSITE OR BY UTILIZING THE ZOOM SERVICES YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS OF SERVICE AND ALL EXHIBITS, ORDER FORMS, AND INCORPORATED POLICIES" Terms of Service. (2020, April 13). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom terms of service website, https://zoom.us/terms[5][6]. This means that even using the Zoom website or web app instantly binds you to the terms of service of Zoom whether you know about it or not. Section 2d.i states that you are prohibited from reverse engineering Zoom services. Since Zoom is proprietary, you can't investigate the source code to figure out what it's doing. Worse than that, the terms of services denies you to even try to figure out how Zoom works or what it does behind the scenes or help anyone else do so. This means that independent security audits of Zoom software are not possible unless Zoom gives up their source code. Therefore, any of the claims Zoom makes about security, encryption, data protection or privacy are impossible to verify without breaking the law. You just have to take their word on it.
+
+According to section 2d.iv, you may not transmit materials that infringe intellectual property. This means if you have music playing in the background of a Zoom call or a movie playing on your television on in the background, you could be breaking Zoom's terms of service without even trying. Section 2d.vi says you cannot "use the Services to communicate any message or material that is harassing, libelous, threatening, obscene, indecent, would violate the intellectual property rights of any party or is otherwise unlawful, that would give rise to civil liability, or that constitutes or encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, under any applicable law or regulation" Terms of Service. (2020, April 13). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom terms of service website, https://zoom.us/terms[7][8]. I'm not a lawyer so I can't interpret this, but the language seems to place broad restrictions on what you are allowed to say over Zoom. Section 15 also says you cannot use Zoom while in a "high-risk" environment.
+
+In section 7d, the terms say that Zoom "content" can be turned over to law enforcement. Section 2b seems to define content as anything that is transmitted from you to Zoom. For example, audio, video, text messages, etc. including metadata is all accessible to law enforcement at any time.
+
+# Privacy Policy
+The privacy policy[9] is always where it gets interesting for tech behemoths. So let's dive in. Here is a list of data Zoom collects: account owner name, billing name, address, payment method, phone number, language, password, title, department, cloud recordings, instant messages, files, whiteboards, voice mails, and "other information shared while using the service". This is mostly data that you explicitly give to Zoom. Let's look at the technical data that you may not even know you are giving Zoom: IP address (who you are online), MAC address (unique to your device), "other device ID", device type, operating system type and version, client version, type of camera, microphone or speakers, connection type, the nearest city you are in, whether you use VoIP, mobile or desktop client, whether you join with video on or off, if your meeting has a password or waiting room or allows screen sharing, how long the meeting was, your email or other identifying information, join and leave time, name of the meeting, date and time of the meeting, chat status, and call data records. For a service that claims to protect user privacy and not sell data to advertisers, that's a lot of non-essential data being collected.
+
+## Recordings
+The recordings section is explaining that anyone in a Zoom call can record a meeting on their local device and save it and that Zoom acknowledges they have no control over this. Despite this, Zoom Phone makes it easier for customers to record calls. "Zoom Phone allows customers to record phone calls, receive voice mail recordings, and obtain transcripts of voicemail, all which may contain personal information and also be stored in our cloud". Privacy Policy. (2020, March 29). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom privacy policy website, https://zoom.us/privacy[10][11]. Creating the transcripts happens automatically which means that the audio data of a call is fed into some automated system which has to listen to the call to create the transcript.
+
+## Attention Tracking
+The section on attention tracking in the Privacy Policy explains that if the host of the meeting is sharing their screen, they can activate a feature called "attention tracking". This means the host can see whether or not the participants have the Zoom window open or are doing something else. This gives whoever the host might be (employers, teachers, etc.) power to invade the participants' computers (employees, students, etc.) to check if they are paying attention or not. Zoom does not give participants any kind of forewarning that what they are doing on their own computers is being monitored and sent to the host other than it being buried in the Privacy Policy which, let's be real, nobody reads. And even if people did read it, they still are not in a position to understand the significance of some of the data collected on them like IP address, MAC address, etc.
+
+It's peculiar how Zoom website obviously tries to give the overwhelming impression that you can trust the software, yet it's against their terms of service to reverse engineer it and their own privacy policy shows they collect enormous amounts of data that isn't strictly necessary or relevant to video conferencing. Do they really need your MAC address or know which OS you're using? But not only does Zoom obtain data when you are using Zoom. They obtain data from you even when you are not using their service.
+
+Their own privacy policy says they collect data about you from Google Analytics and Google Ads. Google analytics can run in your browser as Javascript that watches what you do and collects data on you as you browse the web. If you don't know how to block Javascript, Google Analytics could be watching you in the background on any website without you even knowing it's there. Zoom also collects data from "Data Enrichment Services", and public sources. This could be just about anything from your social media accounts to arrest records. One way this is done is through tracking cookies.
+
+# Cookies Policy
+On the Cookie Policy page[12], it starts off explaining how cookies work. Essentially, cookies are any data a site can store in the browser. They can persist across browsing sessions and unfortunately they are used to track you across the web. I want to pay special attention on the Cookie Policy page to the analytics subtype under functional cookies. "Zoom uses cookies and other identifiers to gather usage and performance data...This includes cookies from Zoom and from third-party analytics providers". Cookie Policy. (2020, January 1). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, https://zoom.us/cookie-policy[13][14]. Notice the important line about how they use third-party analytics providers. How is it possible for Zoom to ensure your data is protected if they use third party analytics providers of which they don't control the data? It's not. We know Zoom uses Google Analytics, and we know that Google's business model is centered around collecting data on its users and selling it for profit.
+
+Despite claiming they protect your data, they have advertising cookies. The interest-based advertising section states "Zoom uses cookies to collect data about your online activity and identify your interests so that we can provide advertising that is most relevant to you. You can opt out of receiving interest-based advertising from Zoom as described in the How to Control Cookies section of this cookie policy and in our Privacy Policy.  Users who opt out of the “sale” of their personal information won’t receive interest-based advertising from us on their device. Note: If you opt out of interest-based advertising, we store your opt-out preference in a cookie on your device". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, https://zoom.us/cookie-policy[15][16].
+
+There is a lot there. They collect interest-based data on you automatically. That is, unless you opt-out. Notice it's not opt-in. The default is collecting your data. You have to know it's happening and then choose to opt out which a lot of the more non-technical users of Zoom aren't going to figure out how to do. I personally find it condescending how they put "sale" in quotes like that's not exactly what they're doing. Further, when you opt out, the fact that you want opted out is stored in a cookie. So if you try to clear tracking cookies from your browser, you might accidentally clear the cookie which says you don't want to be tracked. This also means if you switch browsers or devices, or ever clear your browser cookies, the preference is forgotten and you have to remember to reactivate it every single time. And until you do, you are being tracked by Zoom cookies. Even if you opt-out, there's no guarantee that Zoom doesn't enable a feature to get the same information out of you a different way without using cookies. Again, it's impossible to know because it's against terms of service to reverse engineer Zoom.
+
+"Some of our websites and Products include code snippets provided by social media companies that can sense if you are already logged into a given social media account so you can easily share Zoom content with other social media users via that account". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, https://zoom.us/cookie-policy[17][18]. This means sites like Facebook and Google know you are using Zoom services and what page you are on. Social media sites use tracking cookies to track what websites you visit. Social media sites shouldn't be allowed to know that. Nevertheless, they are found on Zoom's website and services, the videoconferencing platform that "cares about your privacy".
+
+# Third Parties
+Zoom gives your data to third parties. On their subprocessors page[19], they list the following third parties which they give your data to: People.ai, Zendesk, Wootric, Totango, Answerforce, Rocket Science Group LLC, Five9, EPS Ventures, WKJ Consultancy, Salesforce, CyberSource, Adyen, Zuora, Amazon Web Services, Oracle America Inc, and Bandwidth. We will ignore the 3 third parties related to billing (CyberSource, Adyen, and Zuora) since if you're not paying Zoom it probably doesn't apply to you. That still leaves 13 subprocessors each with their own privacy policies and their own third parties. You can see very quickly how the amount of third parties your data is being shared with grows exponentially. 11 of the 13 relevant third parties are under US jurisdiction. Since the 2013 Snowden leaks[20], We know that the U.S. government performs massive dragnet surveillance on US-based companies without any oversight, so it's probably safe to say that the U.S. government is collecting Zoom data from either Zoom itself or Zoom subprocessors.
+
+# Weasel Words
+Here, Zoom is trying to weasel out of the fact that they are selling your data: "As described in the Zoom marketing sites section, Zoom does use certain standard advertising tools on our marketing sites which, provided you have allowed it in your cookie preferences, sends personal data to the tool providers, such as Google. This is not a “sale” of your data in the sense that most of us use the word sale...It is only with the recent developments in data privacy laws that such activities may fall within the definition of a “sale”". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom Privacy Policy website, https://zoom.us/privacy[21][22].
+
+Sadly, Zoom's privacy policy is right. When Zoom gives your data to Google, they are not "selling" your data in the traditional sense that most people understand the word sale to mean. The part Zoom left out is this. Most people wouldn't understand it as a sale because you're not paying for the service with money. You're paying with your data which is far worse. Zoom allows Google to collect and sell your data and in return, Zoom receives services from Google such as analytics without explicitly paying Google for it. Put simply, Zoom pays for Google services with your data. You are the product. Google gets the valuable data to sell, and in return they process it and make it available to Zoom to improve their software or whatever else. This has been Google's business model for a very long time now and just because most customers don't think of the word "sale" that way doesn't mean they wouldn't expand their definition if they understood the business model.
+
+This is tantamount to saying "Zoom isn't really selling customer data because customers don't understand Zoom's business model". That way Zoom can confidently say they aren't selling customer data misleading customers to think that their data is safe. It's absurd. The essence of what Zoom is doing is a sale. It's a value transaction of customer data for service. If that isn't a sale I don't know what is. They also use the word "standard" to make you feel safer. Standard doesn't mean secure. Google analytics and social media tracking cookies may be standard, but that doesn't mean they are good, or even acceptable. It's an example of the bandwagon fallacy.
+
+# Citizen Lab Findings
+I already mentioned how Zoom must provide data to the U.S. government, a member of the Five Eyes[23]. But Zoom provides data to China as well. Citizen Lab[24], an interdisciplinary laboratory at the University of Toronto, reported several troubling findings on 3 April 2020. I'll just go over the key findings and expand on them.
+
+Zoom claimed to use AES-256 in their security whitepaper[25], however Citizenlab found that they actually use AES-128 in ECB mode. Anyone that knows about block cipher modes knows that ECB mode is not suitable for video conferencing. Citizen Lab included the classic example of the ECB penguin[26], which is why you don't use ECB mode for large files. Any audio or video conferencing over ECB would be as secure as the penguin image on the right, not very secure. Worse yet, the encryption keys were found to be generated by Zoom servers in China even when all meeting participants were outside of China. So the Chinese authorities could get the keys and decrypt Zoom communications of children in K-12 classrooms, U.S. courts using Zoom, meetings between government officials, college students, and everyday Americans as well as non-Americans and other countries that used Zoom.
+
+Citizen Lab also shows Zoom advertising their use of end-to-end encryption[27]. End-to-end encryption means only the communicating parties are able to decrypt the communication. Clearly, with the encryption keys generated on the Zoom server itself, that's not possible. Zoom can decrypt your communications. Citizen Lab also claims that they found a "serious security issue" with Zoom's waiting room feature, advising users not to use waiting rooms if they care about meeting confidentiality.
+
+# FBI Warnings
+On 30 March 2020, Boston FBI[28] issued a warning about using Zoom. According to the warning by Setera (30 March 2020) "The FBI has received multiple reports of conferences being disrupted by pornographic and/or hate images and threatening language". This is followed by advice of what to do to prevent Zoom-bombing. But Zoom is not innocent in this because it was possible to scan for random meetings to join. It doesn't strike me as a very useful or necessary feature. Zoom is for teleconferencing. Most meetings will have a specific purpose and the participants don't want random people joining in to disrupt the meeting. So it doesn't make sense to me why this was a feature in the first place. To make matters worse, the FBI report explains Zoom didn't have passwords enabled by default for meetings until January 2020.
+
+# Zoom's Response
+It wouldn't be fair for me to criticise Zoom without also pointing out steps they have taken to address the platform's many problems. First, I want to focus on their April 1st blog post[29]. Eric S. Yuan claims (April 1, 2020) "Thousands of enterprises around the world have done exhaustive security reviews of our user, network, and data center layers and confidently selected Zoom for complete deployment". I would like a full list of these enterprises so I know not to trust their "security reviews". Frankly, 128-bit AES in ECB mode is an embarrassing rookie mistake. It basically only happens when you don't know what you're doing. Just looking at Zoom's track record of horrible security and privacy that I've outlined above, I don't see how thousands of "exhaustive security reviews" could miss so much.
+
+In that blog post, Yuan mentions the increased outreach and video tutorials. But security mistakes caused by user error are not really in the scope of this post. One of the first things the post mentions is that on March 27th, the Facebook SDK[30] was removed from the Zoom app on iOS. It's astounding to me that Yuan can claim in the same blog post detailing the removal of the Facebook SDK that (March 27, 2020) "Our customers’ privacy is incredibly important to us". This is insane. If customer privacy was important then the Facebook SDK would never ever have been in the Zoom app. Facebook is an absolute surveillance monster. The SDK spies on people that don't even use Facebook. Apps that really care about privacy don't touch anything Facebook or Google with a ten foot pole. Some information sent by the Facebook SDK was: Application bundle identifier, application instance ID, application version, device carrier, iOS advertiser ID (gross), iOS device CPU cores, iOS disk space available (why???), iOS device disk space remaining, iOS device display dimensions, iOS device model, iOS language, iOS timezone, and iOS version. This doesn't happen by accident. At some point, a developer for Zoom wrote some code for the iOS app to make it send that device information to Facebook on purpose. For a teleconferencing app, the Facebook SDK is absolutely unnecessary. Zoom only remove the SDK after being called out[31]. for it. This is an example of being reactive to security and privacy issues, not proactive.
+
+## Reactive, Not Proactive
+The Facebook SDK isn't an isolated case either. Zoom didn't start caring about user privacy until they had to start caring about it due to increased media pressure. Here's a Zoom blog post[32] on April 1st about Zoom encryption practices. In the following quote, we can see Zoom trying to weasel their way around not having end-to-end encryption by redefining words again. Oded gal posted (April 1, 2020) "...we used the term end-to-end encryption. While we never intended to deceive any of our customers, we recognize that there is a discrepancy between the commonly accepted definition of end-to-end encryption and how we were using it...". When in doubt, just change the meanings of words so you don't look bad. In Zoom's defense, they don't use end-to-end encryption that way legacy protocols can be supported. Protocols such as H.323, SIP, and PSTN don't work with end-to-end encryption. In my personal opinion, these are good reasons to abandon the PSTN (public switched telephone network) and other legacy protocols that don't support end-to-end encryption. In the year 2020, end-to-end encryption should be ubiquitous and we should reject any applications not using it.
+
+Another absolutely disgusting thing is that Zoom lied to customers again about not selling their data: "...we do not sell our users’ data, we have never sold user data in the past, and have no intention of selling users’ data going forward" Eric S. Yuan. (2020, April 1). Retrieved May 24, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom blog, https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/[33][34]. They did permanently removed the attention tracking feature which never should have existed to begin with. There is no mention of removing Google Analytics though.
+
+## 90-Day Plan
+To play devil's advocate, I can go through Zoom's 90-day plan[35] focusing all their resources on security and privacy to fix their platform. A few things they have done so far: only the host can screen share by default, participants need consent to be unmuted, audio indication for the waiting rooms, removing Giphy, and giving the host more control over the meeting. They also published a draft crypto design[36] to redo their cryptography. It is apparently available for peer review on Github[37]. It's still early to see where all this goes. But given that Zoom hasn't ever owned up to selling user data in exchange for service, I don't have my hopes high.
+
+# Use Jitsi Instead
+Zoom is a proprietary[38] platform. This means it is essentially a black box. As I mentioned earlier, this means it will always be less trustworthy than free software video conferencing solutions such as Jitsi[39]. The Tor Project[40] recommended using Jitsi instead of Zoom. I haven't done much research on Jitsi yet, but if the Tor Project is saying to try Jitsi, I would use it over Zoom any day. It's also cross-platform and features actual end-to-end encryption. Even if Zoom implements end-to-end encryption, how can you trust it if it can't be independently reviewed by anyone and no one outside of Zoom can see the source code? How can you trust the implementation on desktop or mobile platforms? In short, you can't. No platform is perfect, however there are more secure and less secure solutions out there. And in general, you want to avoid proprietary programs because they cause the incentives to be aligned in such a way that Zoom will always have reasons to insert privacy-corroding features into their platform.
+
+When no one except you or your organization can see the source code, there are incentives to insert malicious pieces of code that benefit you at the user's expense. Jitsi does not have the same incentive structure because it's free software[41]. Anyone with the know-how can look over the code and see if something fishy is going on. This will never be true of Zoom. Zoom has no reason to ever give away their source code and make their program trusted free software. Part of the reason I dropped out of my classes at my university was because Zoom because being forced on us students and [I refused to use it]({{< relref "the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor.md" >}}).
+
+## Call to Action
+I'm not saying you, the reader, should go as far as I did. I'm just saying if we, as a society, want to live in a world where we are given more privacy and security in our digital lives, then we have to say no to platforms like Zoom. If we don't, we will move ever closer to some kind of dystopian surveillance hell, assuming we aren't already there. Ask yourself this question: If you don't reject these untrusted proprietary platforms with a horrible track record, then who will? How many people do you know that would reject Zoom if their boss or professor told them to use it? The demand for our digital rights back has to start somewhere, before it's too late.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/22/90-day-security-plan-progress-report-april-22/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/22/90-day-security-plan-progress-report-april-22/)
+[2: https://www.census.gov/popclock/](https://www.census.gov/popclock/)
+[3: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/)
+[4: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/)
+[5: https://zoom.us/terms](https://zoom.us/terms)
+[6: https://zoom.us/terms](https://zoom.us/terms)
+[7: https://zoom.us/terms](https://zoom.us/terms)
+[8: https://zoom.us/terms](https://zoom.us/terms)
+[9: https://zoom.us/privacy](https://zoom.us/privacy)
+[10: https://zoom.us/privacy](https://zoom.us/privacy)
+[11: https://zoom.us/privacy](https://zoom.us/privacy)
+[12: https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy)
+[13: https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy)
+[14: https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy)
+[15: https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy)
+[16: https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy)
+[17: https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy)
+[18: https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy)
+[19: https://zoom.us/subprocessors](https://zoom.us/subprocessors)
+[20: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Global_surveillance_disclosures](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Global_surveillance_disclosures)
+[21: https://zoom.us/privacy](https://zoom.us/privacy)
+[22: https://zoom.us/privacy](https://zoom.us/privacy)
+[23: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Five_Eyes](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Five_Eyes)
+[24: https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-crypto-a-quick-look-at-the-confidentiality-of-zoom-meetings/](https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-crypto-a-quick-look-at-the-confidentiality-of-zoom-meetings/)
+[25: https://zoom.us/docs/doc/Zoom-Security-White-Paper.pdf](https://zoom.us/docs/doc/Zoom-Security-White-Paper.pdf)
+[26: https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/image1.png](https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/image1.png)
+[27: https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/image4.png](https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/image4.png)
+[28: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/boston/news/press-releases/fbi-warns-of-teleconferencing-and-online-classroom-hijacking-during-covid-19-pandemic](https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/boston/news/press-releases/fbi-warns-of-teleconferencing-and-online-classroom-hijacking-during-covid-19-pandemic)
+[29: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/)
+[30: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/03/27/zoom-use-of-facebook-sdk-in-ios-client/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/03/27/zoom-use-of-facebook-sdk-in-ios-client/)
+[31: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3b745/zoom-removes-code-that-sends-data-to-facebook](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3b745/zoom-removes-code-that-sends-data-to-facebook)
+[32: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/facts-around-zoom-encryption-for-meetings-webinars/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/facts-around-zoom-encryption-for-meetings-webinars/)
+[33: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/)
+[34: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/)
+[35: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/22/zoom-publishes-draft-design-of-end-to-end-encryption-offering/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/22/zoom-publishes-draft-design-of-end-to-end-encryption-offering/)
+[36: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/22/zoom-publishes-draft-design-of-end-to-end-encryption-offering/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/22/zoom-publishes-draft-design-of-end-to-end-encryption-offering/)
+[37: https://github.com/zoom/zoom-e2e-whitepaper/blob/master/zoom_e2e.pdf](https://github.com/zoom/zoom-e2e-whitepaper/blob/master/zoom_e2e.pdf)
+[38: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/)
+[39: https://jitsi.org/security](https://jitsi.org/security)
+[40: https://twitter.com/torproject/status/1244986986278072322](https://twitter.com/torproject/status/1244986986278072322)
+[41: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)
diff --git a/content/post/fable-the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant.md b/content/post/fable-the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..05ec549
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/fable-the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+title: "[Fable] The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant"
+date: 2021-01-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Death
+Death has been an ever-present fact of life since the dawn of humanity. Large parts of human culture have been shaped by the knowledge that one day we will cease to be. In the past our species has had no choice but to come to terms with it. But technological progress is now accelerating so rapidly that a cure for aging is conceivable. Some even argue it's inevitable.
+
+The idea of curing death makes many of us uncomfortable, at least initially. It's hard to imagine a society where aging and death no longer pose a threat. So much about our culture would have to change. And yet Nick Bostrom[1] argues not only is curing death preferable, it's a moral imperative we should strive to achieve as soon as possible. He goes so far as to argue that "deathist" ideologies, ideologies that endorse or encourage complacency with death as a part of life, while useful in the past for consoling people, today pose "fatal barriers to urgently needed action". Anyone with an interest in philosophy should read his fable about death.
+
+[Link below]
+The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant[2]
+
+# Morality
+My own view of death is informed by how I see morality[3]. To give you a taste of it, I'll start by saying this: Your intrinsic values can never be wrong. Another way of expressing that is: If there are things you value above everything else, those things cannot be mistaken. They may be highly abstract. They may not fit into words. They may even change over time. But it's incoherent to say you are wrong about your intrinsic values[4].
+
+In reference to what can your intrinsic values be said to be wrong? For example if you value happiness above all else and you think money (the things you can do with it) makes you happy, money is an instrumental value[5]. You value money because you value happiness. If you hit the lottery tomorrow and you're no happier than before, then perhaps you're wrong to value money. But you can't be wrong to value happiness. If it ever seems that you are that just means happiness isn't an intrinsic value for you.
+
+So if someone asked me "Should we cure death?", my response would be "Well what do you value?". If your eventual demise is one of your intrinsic values then I can't really tell you you're wrong to value death. I can, but if you're a rational agent, it won't convince you. What Bostrom is saying in his fable to "deathists" is "You only think you value death. You don't really want to die". The purpose of his fable is to correct your intuition about death. It's the same as my earlier example where you value money because you value happiness, but then hitting the lottery corrects the intuition that money brings happiness. Bostrom is saying, like money, you only think you value death, but you don't really.
+
+That sums up my perspective on his fable. After reading his fable and his argument I'm more sympathetic than before to the cause of curing death. Perhaps he's right that most of us won't realize how much we actually value a cure for aging and death until we're already on the brink of a cure. And by that point we will wish we prioritized a cure much sooner.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://nickbostrom.com](https://nickbostrom.com)
+[2: https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html](https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html)
+[3: /2020/10/11/metaethics](../../../../2020/10/11/metaethics/)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_%28ethics%29](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_%28ethics%29)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Instrumental_value](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Instrumental_value)
diff --git a/content/post/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md b/content/post/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..59c0c36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+title: "Fighting The War On Drugs With Jury Nullification"
+date: 2022-03-26T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Disclaimer: The information provided in this entry does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. This entry is for general informational purposes only.
+
+# The War on Drugs
+Drug prohibition was a mistake from the beginning.[1] It's a disastrous policy that has led to mass unnecessary suffering. It has endangered public health and safety, caused the prison population to explode, and led to the militarization of the police and loss of personal liberty for everyone.
+
+# Using Jury Nullification to Fight The War on Drugs
+Now if you're over eighteen, you may have been asked to serve on a jury already. I've been asked to. It's common for people to come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty, but I urge you not to! You may get the opportunity to help fight against the War on Drugs.
+
+I'm going to tell you something judges don't want you to know about. It's called jury nullification[2]. In the United States and many other free countries, juries cannot be punished for having an unpopular verdict. You're free to vote not guilty, even if you believe the defendant broke the law.
+
+If you show up to jury duty and end up serving as a juror on a nonviolent drug offense case, you can just vote not guilty, even if the defendant is obviously guilty. You can't be punished for jury nullification as long as you don't indicate you're doing it. Do avoid mentioning it to anybody though because judges frown upon it, it may prevent you from serving on the jury, and it may be a violation of your juror duties.
+
+# Objections to Jury Nullification
+You might object "Sure I can nullify the jury, but the law was decided by the majority through a democratic process. Who am I to override it with my personal sense of justice? Doesn't that create a bad precedent where everybody votes however they want regardless of the law?". Those are two very good questions. I'll address the first question first.
+
+## Isn't Jury Nullification Undemocratic?
+Two-thirds of Americans now support "ending the War on Drugs" and "eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession and reinvesting drug enforcement resources into treatment and addiction services".[3] There are powerful interests who stand to benefit from prolonging the War on Drugs, but the majority want the laws to change.
+
+So it's actually the laws that are undemocratic. Nullifying the drug laws in court is the more democratic thing to do since most voters don't support prohibition.
+
+## Doesn't Jury Nullification Set a Bad Precedent?
+Now onto the second question. Does jury nullification set a bad precedent?
+
+Just for the sake of argument, let's entertain the slippery slope fallacy[4] and assume the worst case. Using jury nullification against the War on Drugs leads all jurors to start voting according to their personal sense of justice over the law in every case. Where does this leave us?
+
+More people being aware of jury nullification could lead to jurors being more likely to vote guilty for defendants they dislike, even if they believe the defendant is not guilty. But the judge can override a guilty verdict if jury nullification is obvious. They cannot overturn an acquittal though. And even if a defendant gets convicted, they still have a chance to appeal. So jury nullification doesn't lend itself to guilty verdicts.
+
+The bigger concern I think is that jurors would vote to acquit someone who is guilty of grievous crimes. For instance, Trump supporters may vote to acquit the insurrectionists who raided the U.S. capitol building. This is a legitimate concern. In the past, jurors voted to acquit lynch mobs because of underlying racist sympathies.
+
+But I want to point out that today and even back then, the main issue was not people evading conviction on grievous crimes. It was people who don't belong in jail getting convicted anyways. A few insurrectionists evading the law is a small price to pay in exchange for thousands of nonviolent drug offenders not going to prison.
+
+# Conclusion
+The potential downsides to jury nullification for nonviolent drug offenses are clearly outweighed by the benefits. I most likely won't be asked to serve on a jury again now, but if the day ever comes and I get a nonviolent drug case, well you can probably figure out how I'm going to vote.
+
+If enough people nullify drug laws, we can get the drug laws themselves to reflect the will of the majority and jury nullification won't be necessary.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Against Drug Prohibition](https://www.aclu.org/other/against-drug-prohibition)
+[2: Jury Nullification](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)
+[3: Overwhelming Majority Say War on Drugs Has Failed, Support New Approach](https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/bpi-aclu_wod_public_release_memo_060221_updated060821_final.pdf)
+[4: Slippery Slope Fallacy](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
diff --git a/content/post/flygskam.md b/content/post/flygskam.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cac8eff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/flygskam.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+title: "Flygskam"
+date: 2021-07-25T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Quitting Flying
+One of the best ways to reduce your carbon emissions is by quitting flying. It's by far the most environmentally destructive means of travel. Most of the time it's more energy efficient to travel by train, ship or car. And at a time when climate change is destroying life on earth, there just isn't room in the carbon budget to accommodate it. So we should all minimize the number of flights we take.
+
+Now I'll be the first to admit I'm a hypocrite. I've flown a lot over the past few years. I'm certain I've flown more distance than the average American. And as I write this, several US states are setting daily record highs. Which is why I'm quitting flying effective as of this post. Not just for 1 year, not for 2 years, but until the climate crisis is averted or until there are environmentally friendly ways to fly. I realize that might seem bold of me, but ignoring the climate crisis seems even bolder.
+
+# Flygskam
+I'm not the first person to make the decision not to fly. The flygskam (flight shame) movement started in Sweden in 2018. It was first popularized by Greta Thunberg[1]. Later, a number of Swedish celebrities pledged not to fly further increasing the movement's popularity[2]. It went on to spread across Europe. I encourage all of you reading to also pledge not to fly[3] to help save the planet.
+
+# Harm Reduction
+Since I believe in the principle of harm reduction, here's how to avoid excess carbon emissions if you do decide to fly despite flygskam.
+
+## Fly Economy
+Flying premium means you have more space than economy passengers do. But it also means you take up more floor space, making your carbon footprint several times greater than those who ride commercial. To avoid this, fly economy every time.
+
+## No Private Jets
+Private jets are bad for the same reason as flying premium is bad. But private jets are several times worse than flying premium, again because of the floor space per person. So don't use a private jet, if you're rich enough to afford one.
+
+## Buy Carbon Offsets
+Some airlines offer carbon offsets. It's debatable how effective these are in actually offsetting emissions. But again, we're doing our best to focus on harm reduction after you've decided to take the flight. You can also buy carbon offsets from websites that aren't associated with airlines. Just be sure to do your research first to avoid getting scammed.
+
+# Covid-19
+Now you might be wondering how practical it actually is to just not fly on planes. Can society function with far less air travel? Luckily the Covid-19 pandemic has given us a clue.
+
+Because of Covid-19, airlines cut up to 95% of their trips in April of 2020[4]. Now I don't know how sustainable that 95% is. But it at least shows that, no matter what the airline industry says, it's feasible to cut back massively on air travel. Another way of putting that is a lot of air travel going on right now is non-essential. And Covid-19 may have helped many of us frequent flyers realize that we don't actually need to fly and there are alternatives to flying. So take that into consideration next time you think about flying.
+
+# Freedom and Privacy
+But maybe the environmental reason isn't good enough. After all, flying makes up less than 3% of total carbon emissions. Well if you live in the United States, I have one more bonus reason for you to avoid flying. That is, all the changes made to airports since 9/11. I'm agnostic with respect to how much this applies to other countries. But for the TSA, I recommend Bruce Schneier's blog post on Reassessing Airport Security[5] where he spells out many good reasons that the airport security implemented since 9/11 is mostly a futile waste of everyone's time and money.
+
+Now you might be thinking "So what if airports waste money on security. What does that have to do with me?". The answer is it affects your privacy and freedom in airports. Your bags and your person will be invasively searched by metal detectors and full-body scanners. You can be put on the no-fly list without being given a reason and without any real recourse.
+
+## Personal Experiences
+The last time I flew, I felt like I was being interrogated by the TSA. They asked me questions which I can't imagine were relevant to their job. They also left a nice little note in my luggage letting me know they snooped through all my stuff and I didn't feel any safer for it. Actually, it made me feel less safe. It was a pointless charade of security theater.
+
+## Boycott Flying Movement
+So if you want to avoid your privacy being invaded, being under suspicion to thwart a threat that is one-fourth as likely as getting hit by lightning, then boycott flying. Again, I'm not the first person to think of rejecting flying because of freedom and privacy reasons. My Political Science instructor was the one who first put the idea in my head. After some research, I also found a post on Axis Of Logic calling for people to boycott flying to preserve their freedom[6]. I'm not promoting Axis of Logic, but I do respect this particular article. The Boycott Flying link is dead, but you can still view the site archived by the Wayback Machine[7].
+
+# Conclusion
+Whether you're a climate activist or you just care about your own personal freedom, you now have several good reasons to avoid boarding that next flight. For me personally, I care about the environment and my own personal freedom and privacy. I find both points of view individually convincing. So as I said before, I'm quitting flying altogether until the climate crisis is averted. If and when the climate crisis is averted, I'll probably avoid flights to places that I can reach by land until the TSA stops groping passengers.
+
+I encourage you, dear reader, to join me by avoiding flying as much as you can possibly tolerate for the sake of your own freedom and for the sake of life on earth. Thanks for reading.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: How Greta Thunberg and Flygskam Are Shaking the Global Airline Industry](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/flygskam-is-the-swedish-travel-trend-that-could-shake-the-global-airline-industry-2019-06-20)
+[2: Swedish Celebrities Quit Flying](https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/flygskam-anti-flying-flight-shaming-sweden-greta-thornberg-environment-air-travel-train-brag-tagskryt-a8945196.html)
+[3: Flightfree](https://flightfree.org/)
+[4: Airlines Cut 95% of Flights](https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-04-03/coronavirus-has-changed-how-we-transport-goods-and-ourselves-will-it-last)
+[5: Reassessing Airport Security](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_air.html)
+[6: Axis of Logic Article](https://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57976.shtml)
+[7: Boycott Flying](https://web.archive.org/web/20100826093256id_/http://www.boycottflying.com/)
diff --git a/content/post/free-international-texting-without-a-phone-number.md b/content/post/free-international-texting-without-a-phone-number.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a442150
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/free-international-texting-without-a-phone-number.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+title: "Free International Texting Without a Phone Number"
+date: 2022-04-21T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# SMS/Email Gateways
+So I just found out that many cell phone service providers run SMS/email gateways. I don't believe they're very well known, but they are extremely useful. I created a Git repo listing all the ones that are known to work[1], so be sure to check that out if you're interested.
+
+What these gateways enable you to do is send texts via email and send emails via text. So for instance, I can email "0123456789@txt.att.net" and my message will arrive to the phone number "0123456789" as a text. The received text will look something like:
+
+```
+FROM: Nicholas Johnson
+SUBJECT: for a journal entry
+MSG: hello.
+```
+
+And my recipient can send a text reply to that message and it will go to my email. Images can also be sent and received as MMS messages. The major U.S. cellular providers all have SMS/email gateways, so it's actually quite convenient. It also doesn't require any proprietary app, just email. You obviously can't use it to make calls, but it's a partial solution if you're trying to avoid paying cellular providers or avoid carrying a smartphone, which there are many good reasons to do[2].
+
+I live in the US where we use phone numbers to contact each other, so these gateways are a big help for me personally. If I have nothing else except someone's phone number to bootstrap communication with them, I can use these gateways instead of paying monthly fees to a cell phone company. I can also send texts to some international numbers for free, which is nice.
+
+If you live in a country that de facto requires you to use WhatsApp or WeChat or some other proprietary mobile-specific app, then avoiding smartphones and avoiding paying cell providers is going to be more challenging. In those cases, the workarounds are more involved. You're probably looking at installing and configuring your own Matrix bridges[3].
+
+Nonetheless, I hope I helped somebody today by introducing these gateways.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: SMS/Email Gateway List](https://git.nicksphere.ch/sms-email-gateway-list/)
+[2: Why I Don't Have a Smartphone](../../../../2021/12/26/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone/)
+[3: Matrix Bridges](https://matrix.org/bridges/)
diff --git a/content/post/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1.md b/content/post/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e7b0984
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+title: "Free Will is Incoherent - Part 1"
+date: 2020-06-19T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Preface
+Before you read what I have to write about free will, you should know that I agree fully with what Sam Harris[1] has written on the subject. I'm just going to be reiterating things he has said in my own words with some of my own observations. So if you are familiar with his words on the topic, I recommend skipping this post.
+
+# What is Free Will?
+For me to explain why free will is incoherent, I must first define it. The definition I am using is this: Free will is the capacity for conscious agents to do otherwise. For example, I ate vanilla ice cream. I could have eaten chocolate instead, or so it seems. This is the definition most closely aligned with what people understand free will to mean and the first one you will find on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[2].
+
+# Knock Down Argument
+I'm going to come at free will as I have defined it from several perspectives. First, I want to present a knock down argument against it. Usually, there are two sides to an issue or at least some gray area. But with free will, this is not so. Any fool can easily see it makes no sense even with a basic understanding of physics or logic. The argument against free will goes like this:
+
+Word form:
+1. The cosmos is either deterministic or random.
+2. If the cosmos is deterministic, there is no free will.
+3. If the cosmos is random, there is no free will.
+4. Therefore, there is no free will.
+
+Symbolic form:
+D = The cosmos is deterministic.
+F = Free will exists.
+
+1. D -> ~F (True premise)
+2. ~D -> ~F (True premise)
+3. F (premise)
+4. ~D (Modus tollens 1 3)
+5. D (Modus tollens 2 3)
+6. Contradiction (4 5)
+
+Therefore, premise 3 is false. Free will does not exist.
+
+## Justifying Premises
+I should justify how I know premise 1 and 2 are true. For numbering reference, I'm using the symbolic form of the argument, not the word form. So, let me start with premise 1. If the cosmos is deterministic, then free will does not exist. Imagine watching a movie. If you rewind the movie and replay the scene, the same events happen. If you rewind the movie a hundred times and replay it, you are going to see the same show. If the cosmos is like this, then where is your free will? You would be no more free to choose than the character in a movie you watch. That is to say, if it makes sense to "rewind the cosmos", then the exact same events are going to happen at the same time in the same order the exact same way. This is incompatible with the popular conception of free will because with free will, you may make a different choice, changing the course of events from that point forward. If the cosmos is deterministic, then everything that was ever going to happen from the beginning of the cosmos until now was determined the moment it began. The atoms that make up your brain and the quarks that make up the atoms, at bottom, behave deterministically. If the cosmos is deterministic, you definitely could not have "done otherwise", since it was predetermined.
+
+Now on to premise two. If the cosmos is not deterministic, then free will does not exist. I'm going to substitute "not deterministic" for "random", since they are equivalent by definition. If the cosmos is random, then free will does not exist. Imagine you are choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. You assign chocolate to heads and vanilla as tails on a coin. Then you flip a fair coin. It lands heads, so you eat chocolate ice cream. Did you choose to eat chocolate? Of course not. If you rewind that moment 100 times and if the coin is truly random, then chances are you will eat chocolate around 50 times and vanilla 50 times. But in no sense did you choose. Sure you can "do otherwise" in the superficial sense, but no one would say they chose to eat that flavor. So that shouldn't be counted. Although it sounds like it satisfies the technical definition of free will, it's not what anyone means by the term. I need to point out that a coin flip is a bad example. Coin flips are very deterministic because coins are such huge objects compared to atoms and quarks. Quantum mechanics tells us, among many things, that the cosmos has true randomness. I say "true randomness" because a coin flip isn't truly random. If you know the initial condition of the coin and the airflow of the room and its initial velocity all perfectly, then you can predict which side the coin will land on before it lands. That's not true randomness. I only used it as an analogy because it's easier to talk about than quantum mechanics, but my argument still holds true.
+
+It follows therefore that free will does not exist. Note that I use the word "cosmos" instead of "universe" in my argument to include "all that is". That includes souls if you believe you have one, god or gods, alternate dimensions, nonphysical reality, magic, etc. My argument remains the same for whatever you might want to throw in, so there's nothing extra you can add that will make free will exist.
+
+# But I feel free!
+If you pay close enough attention to the process of making a decision, what your brain is doing, then you will clearly see you have no idea where your decisions come from. From the perspective of your conscious mind, your decisions seem to pop right out of the void. You are in no position to say where your decisions come from or why you did what you did. Studies have repeatedly beared this out. The reasons people give for the decisions they make do not align with the actual reasons. Sam Harris referenced an experiment where participants are given hot coffee versus cold coffee before a decision is made, and those two groups of hot and cold participants will make different decisions on average. But they never say it was the temperature of the coffee.
+
+Even without any outside influence, you didn't wire your brain. You didn't choose your upbringing. You didn't choose your parents or genes which we know influence how impulsive you are, how neurotic, and other factors. There is a continuous chain of causality (which you didn't choose) that led up to this moment. Pay attention to your breath going in and out for just 30 seconds and wait for your next thought. Where did that thought come from? How can you have free will if you don't know the next thing that you're going to think? Your mind is not under your own control. If it was, then part of it would be doing the controlling and the other part controlled. But the part that is doing the controlling is not under control by definition. This invites an infinite regression of who is controlling the controller. The buck has to stop somewhere. Even if you did wire your own brain, that would invite an infinite regression again. Did you wire the part that did the wiring? This is all assuming it even makes sense to talk about your brain as two logically distinct separate entities. Even the sense of having free will is a feeling you did not yourself manufacture.
+
+What I'm trying to show is that you are not the thinker of your thoughts. In general, we feel that we have thoughts. And that there is a separate us that is thinking them. This is not so. There is no separate thinker of your thoughts. The feeling of there being a thinker of your thoughts is itself a sensation in consciousness. The sensation of there being a "decider" of your decisions is just itself a sensation. Not only do you not have free will, but there is no self, no ego, no decider that could possibly make decisions in the first place. There are only decisions. The problem is the word decisions implies a decider, so it's a loaded word that I have to labor under to get my point across.
+
+If you still feel free, all I can do is invite you to look closer at your own decision making process going on inside your head. But it's not hard to see that you're not "doing" your decisions.
+
+# Incoherent
+When I say free will is incoherent, what I mean is it's impossible to conceive of a cosmos in which free will does exist. My knock down argument only shows that free will does not exist, not that it's incoherent. In truth, it's an awkward argument to make. One could debate the semantics of proving the nonexistence of an incoherent concept, but my argument gets my point across anyhow. For example, the idea of fairies is at least coherent. That is, it's at least possible to imagine a cosmos in which they exist, even though we know there's no evidence for them. The same cannot be said about free will, no matter how good your imagination is. It's difficult to show that something is incoherent because there's nothing to show. It's really on the burden of those supporting it to prove that it is coherent. And if they are unable, my work is done. I'll give an example.
+
+If you ask someone that doesn't philosophize all day long what free will is, they might tell you it's the ability to choose. But what does it mean to make a choice? The problem has been pushed back a step because now we have to define what a choice is. If you ask them again, "What is a choice?", they may respond saying it's a decision. And then you can ask "Let's get very precise here since it is philosophy after all. What exactly is a decision"? And you can go on and on like this. The problem is any time they use the word "choice" or "decision", they are unknowingly sneaking in free will. Anecdotally, I have never had someone give me a satisfactory explanation to that inquiry. It was always replacing "choice" with "decision" or vice versa. I never did get to the bottom of it and it's always the same conversation. This leads one to believe that free will isn't really concrete at all. It's a vague idea that people think they understand. But when challenged, they can't explain what it physically means.
+
+# Compatibilism
+There is a philosophical position called compatibilism which I should mention. Not everyone uses the same definition of free will as I have used in my argument. Compatibilists claim that free will is compatible with determinism by redefining the term "free will". I don't really consider this worth arguing against since no one thinks of or uses the word free will in that sense. Immanuel Kant[3] called it "word jugglery" and William James[4] pejoratively referred to it as "soft determinism".
+
+Our cosmos as we currently understand it isn't even deterministic, so the compatibilist also has to claim that a random cosmos is compatible with free will as well. This means a cosmos which is, at bottom, behaving in a random fashion somehow gives you free will. Free will also can't be an emergent property of determinism or randomness, so the compatibilist position is just a failed attempt at redefining common parlance to win an argument.
+
+# Conclusion
+I have shown that free will is an incoherent idea and addressed some common arguments in favor of it. It's easy to despair after reading this post. In the next and final post, I want to show that the lack of free will is not something to despair about. It can actually be a source of compassion. It has important implications for how we think about responsibility as I have hinted at in my past post[5] on individual responsibility. It has huge implications for the US criminal justice system. I would suggest collecting some thoughts of your own and drawing your own conclusions about what this means for our society as an exercise before you go on to read the next part. It does take me a lot of work to put these ideas out expressed in a clear way. So, if you find value in my posts, send a donation (details on my about page[6]).
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/](https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/)
+[2: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/William_James](https://wikiless.org/wiki/William_James)
+[5: /2020/04/10/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility](../../../../2020/04/10/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility/)
+[6: /about](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2.md b/content/post/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9e21aa6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+title: "Free Will is Incoherent - Part 2"
+date: 2020-08-22T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Recap
+If you haven't read my part 1[1] post about why free will is incoherent, I recommend reading that before continuing. In it, I demonstrate that free will not only does not exist, but it is incoherent on many levels. To sum up, the cosmos is either deterministic or random. This leaves no room for the conventional notion of free will since neither determinism nor randomness get you free will. It's impossible to imagine a cosmos where free will does exist, and that's not because of lack of imagination. Even worse than that, there is no self to which free will could be ascribed in the first place. So, it's a deeply confused idea.
+
+What I want to do in this post is talk about the implications of those facts. I want to talk about how we can still hold others responsible knowing they don't have free will, how we can justify a justice system and laws if people aren't ultimately responsible for what they do, and how realizing free will does not exist opens the doors to compassion. Responsibility is a good starting point to introduce the other topics, so I will start there.
+
+# Responsibility
+If we have no free will, shouldn't we just do nothing since our choices aren't our own anyway? No. Because the choice to do nothing is itself not of your own free will. So you aren't "escaping" your lack of free will by doing nothing. Besides, can you really just sit around and do nothing for the rest of your life? Should you just not resist bad urges then? Also no, because every time you successfully resisted bad urges like overeating, that wasn't of your own free will either. But how can people be responsible without free will? In other words, if a thief or murderer literally could not have stopped themselves from thieving or murdering, then how can we fault them for it? To do so would be like faulting a falling rock that lands on someone for obeying gravity because it has the exact same degree of free will as people do; none. I have talked about responsibility before in my previous post on individual responsibility[2]. I'm not sure how we should redefine responsibility. That's philosophy of language and not really what this post is about. But, there are a few other things I can speak to.
+
+Sam Harris gives the example of a brain tumor which I will reiterate here. A person has a tumor pressing against their brain causing a violent episode in which they commit murder. Let's say they wouldn't have committed murder absent the tumor. Then the tumor is fully exculpatory of the murder. It was the tumor's fault. The murderer couldn't help that they grew a tumor and we can all pretty much agree on that. But what if there was no tumor? We know as a matter of physics that the moments that led up to the murder, specifically the states of the murderer's brain, fully determined that a murder was going to happen. If we could see the full chain of prior causes starting at the birth of the murderer to their upbringing, the memes they were taught by their society and culture, their genetic predisposition, down to the way their brain grew, and the moments and thought processes that led up to the murder, we would have a very different intuition. Seeing the full chain of prior causes is as fully exculpatory as learning about the presence of a tumor. The only difference is a tumor is more obvious. We can see a tumor. We can't necessarily see a chain of prior causes. Instead of feeling anger or hatred or whatever at this person, we would feel empathy because we could see how, moment by moment, they were inevitably pushed into murdering. If we swapped places with this person atom by atom, we would have done exactly as they had done, inevitably forced by the chain of causality.
+
+## Compassion
+One consequence of this is that hating people no longer makes sense. Even people that committed unspeakable atrocities such as Hitler and Stalin can't rationally be hated for what they did. I'm not defending them either. Pick any villains you like. They are as much a victim of the chain of causality as morally good people are. No one is responsible for the way they are, not in any ultimate sense. This also means that feelings of pride and shame don't really have any merit either. It doesn't make any more sense for you to be really proud of your successes than ashamed of your failures. Your successes and failures are not of your own doing. How could they be? And besides, you are a constantly changing organism. So, it's a legitimate question to ask if the continual process that is you is similar enough to how it was when it succeeded or failed to actually stake claim to past successes and failures.
+
+This opens us up to feel more compassion for everyone, not just people we like. It's precisely because we could have been in their shoes, that we could have been them in another life so to speak and done exactly as they did (if only we had their atoms) with no ability to choose otherwise, that we are able to cease judgement and feel compassion. This also explains why we feel more forgiving of our own mistakes than others' mistakes. We can see the full chain of prior causes through our memories. "I'm the way I am because of my parents who raised me. And they are the way they are because of their parents etc. But my neighbor or friend or coworker who is a mess is like they are just because that's how they are. With me, Adam committed the original sin and therefore nothing is my fault. With my neighbor/coworker/friend/person who cut me off in traffic though, it's a different story. The buck just stops at them".
+
+# Justice
+How can we justify throwing people in jails and prisons if they aren't ultimately responsible for their actions? Simple. Society is better off that way. Being "tough on crime" is completely compatible with disbelief in free will. What doesn't make sense is punishment for the sake of it. Given what we now know about free will and how that corrects our idea of responsibility, it doesn't make any sense at all to punish someone just for the sake of it. How does it make sense to punish someone for the sake of it when they literally could not have done anything else? Punishment should always be toward some end. Hopefully toward a constructive end like rehabilitation, rather than a destructive end like vengeance. Sadly, the (in)justice system in the United States (and many other countries) does not reflect our modern understanding of the brain or free will. That is to say it isn't based on reality.
+
+The philosophy of punishment for the sake of it, punishment because it is "deserved", pervades the United States (in)justice system. One stated purpose of the (in)justice system is rehabilitation. But this is in stark contrast to how prisoners are actually treated. It is, frankly, absolutely disgusting how our society treats lawbreakers, especially felons, in and outside of jails and prisons. The punishment itself is only supposed to be separation from society to keep the public safe and rehabilitate the criminal. The justification should sound something like "We have to isolate you from the general public to rehabilitate you for your own good and everyone else's. It's for the best". But we all know it goes far beyond that. As a felon in the United States, it's hard to get a decent job or housing. We need to ask ourselves, how does this help with rehabilitation? How does telling someone they can't vote because they committed a crime help reintegrate them? What is the rational, rehabilitative basis for mandatory minimum sentencing[3]? Is it justice to make several million workers work for slave wages (a few dollars per day) because they previously committed a crime? In what universe does slave labor help rehabilitate incarcerated workers? What about the fact that prison food is often unhealthy and nutritionally inadequate for adults? How does that help? How does it help prisoners by throwing them into solitary confinement for sometimes years to the point where they become antisocial and lose communication skills? I could go on but you get the point.
+
+The way incarcerated people are treated in the United States demonstrates 3 things:
+1. The (in)justice system does not reflect an understanding that free will is incoherent, but endorses it as "universal and persistent" foundation for our whole legal system.
+2. The (in)justice system fails to address the root psychological causes of recidivism and actively makes recidivism worse through dehumanization and punishment for the sake of it.
+3. The (in)justice system demonstrates a psychopathic lack of compassion for incarcerated individuals that shows many involved have no actual interest in rehabilitation, only a desire for vengeance.
+
+The most surprising of these for me is number 2. I understand there is a prison-industrial complex which focuses on making the rich richer rather than rehabilitating prisoners. With that in mind, there stills seems to be either an extremely impoverished understanding and deep misunderstanding of criminal psychology by correctional officers, prison staff, and prison administrators who demonstrate their misunderstanding by egging on violence and needless suffering in prisons through policy and actions or an almost psychopathic lack of empathy and compassion from a combination of personal callousness of the suffering of others or being in an extraordinarily toxic environment where rehabilitation is only a word on paper and not a philosophy permeating the prison system and the only goal is to get home safe, not help incarcerated people. I'm afraid it's both.
+
+How incarcerated people are treated says more about our society than it does about those incarcerated. Take the death penalty for instance. By putting someone to death, we are essentially saying, "We have no idea how to help this person. We lack the knowledge or resources to sufficiently rehabilitate them, so we just have to make them not exist any more". That says more about our competence as a society than it does about the incarcerated individuals. Every time someone is executed by capital punishment by the state, that is a failure of our society to be competent enough to help that person. The very act of capital punishment, or decades-long prison sentences, demonstrates that fact.
+
+## We Can Do Better
+I'm big on evidence-based thinking. No amount of me preaching about how broken our (in)justice system is shows that we can in fact do better. I can say everything I have above, but it doesn't prove anything. It's just me preaching. So I want to briefly cover some examples of how Nordic prison philosophy is more effective at rehabilitation and why their data makes sense in the context of everything I've already said. I'd highly recommend watching the documentaries out there on the Nordic prison system. I like the one about Halden Prison[4].
+
+Norway has one of the world's lowest recidivism rates sitting at 20% while over 50% of prisoners in the United States will be back in jail within three years of release (Deady, C. W. (2014, March). Incarceration and Recidivism: Lessons from Abroad. Retrieved August 22, 2020, from https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf[5]). Norway has no death penalty and a maximum of 21 years in prison. Meanwhile the United States has 25% of the world's prison population despite only having 5% of the world's total population. Americans are incarcerated for much longer than people in other countries and for non-violent offenses that wouldn't even lead to incarceration in other countries[6]. Here is a quote from Time Magazine in 2010:
+
+> Norwegians see the island (Bastoy prison) as the embodiment of their country's long-standing penal philosophy: that traditional, repressive prisons do not work, and that treating prisoners humanely boosts their chances of reintegrating into society. (William Lee Adams, “Sentenced to Serving the Good Life in Norway,” Time, July 12, 2010. Accessed August 22, 2020, http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2000920,00.html[7]).
+
+Who would have thought that treating human beings like human beings with a real interest in trying to help them would be the best thing for society? Halden prison in Norway allows prisoners to freely roam for up to 12 hours in a day while max security prisons in the United States allow comparatively very little "yard time" surrounded by electric fences, razor wire, and snipers. It's honestly very sad and disappointing that the United States and many other countries fail to do better than that. In Halden prison, each inmate's room is private containing a desk, fridge, kitchen, and television according to an NPR article by Jeffrey Kofman[8]. Halden has no razor wire or snipers and is less overcrowded than max security facilities in the United States. In Halden, violence is extremely rare. And escape attempts are very rare also.
+
+The data doesn't lie. It's not a big happy coincidence that Nordic prisons see better results. It makes psychological and social sense that they see better results given how they treat prisoners. Their philosophy is one of restorative justice, creating better neighbors and equipping inmates with the skills to be successful back out in society, not just throwing them in a cage for inordinate amounts of time and hoping they "learn their lesson". I'm not saying there is no place for punishment in prisons, but there is an excessive focus on punitive actions in American prisons that is directly driven by the philosophy that free will exists and they "deserve" what they get. Watch prison documentaries and first-person accounts in America and other countries with a high recidivism rate and compare them to prison documentaries in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. It's amazing to watch some long-time prison officials take trips to the Norwegian facilities and even get emotional because they realize how broken our system really is and how they contribute to that.
+
+# A New Mindset
+The key to a new mindset about justice really is introducing the meme of no free will into society and rethinking our idea of responsibility. Our idea of responsibility cannot include the idea that people are ultimately the "author" of their actions. We know that has to be false as a matter of physics and philosophy. Once the incoherency of free will is understood and its implications for compassion and justice, that really pulls the rug out from under the justification for hate and retribution.
+
+I spent a lot of time talking about the implications for justice. Not only in our personal lives is it important to cultivate compassion for conscious beings, but it is important for our institutions as well. Even if you are a completely selfish person, don't you want to live in a society of healthy, compassionate and self-actualized people just for your own sake? Your environment affects you like you affect it and who is in your environment affects you. If a segment of our population is suffering, that is not only that segment's problem. That is everyone's problem because we are not all isolated little egos separate from one another. While there isn't always something you can do to help others, that does not mean you shouldn't practice compassion for them.
+
+I want to propose a principle of radical universal compassion toward all conscious beings. One of the most important things we can do is find ways to practice compassion toward those that have wronged us and toward ourselves for our own past transgressions against others. I'm not saying you ought never to feel bad about having wronged someone. But continuing to beat yourself up is not useful. Some people are toxic and you should avoid associating with them. But holding on to negative emotions, continuing to feel angry or guilty isn't useful. And it doesn't feel good either. Holding a grudge harms you more than the person against whom you hold the grudge. Holding a grudge is akin to the thought process "It's important that I stay angry at this person for much longer than the normal half-life of my anger because they've done something so unforgiveable". While you may cut ties with someone for compassion toward yourself, the hanging on to negative emotions is more harmful to yourself than to them. It's like picking up a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else. You are the only one that gets burned.
+
+By realizing that no one is ultimately responsible for what they do, we open the doors to compassion. A person has exactly as much free will as a rock, and therefore holds as much ultimate responsibility for their actions as a rock does for falling on someone. You may object that humans are not like rocks. Humans have a nervous system and rocks don't. Humans know what they are doing, even if they aren't ultimately responsible. If a person commits a murder, we can conclude they are more likely perpetrate violence in the future. If a rock falls on someone, we can't conclude the same rock will fall on someone again just because it did so once before. What I'm saying is rocks and brains have the same degree of free will. In that respect, they are the same. So it makes no more sense to blame a brain for planning a murder than it does to blame a rock for falling on someone. Develop a justice system that deters future violence and promotes better patterns of thought and behavior in brains? Absolutely. But that isn't what is happening in America's justice system and many others and the minds of many citizens. Blame is what is happening. Vengeance is what is happening. Needless suffering is what is happening. And that can't be justified given a lack of free will. The guiding principle that does make sense in a justice system is compassion, and the results from Nordic prisons bears that out.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: /2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
+[2: /2020/04/10/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility](../../../../2020/04/10/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility/)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Halden_Prison](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Halden_Prison)
+[5: https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf](https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf)
+[6: https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf](https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf)
+[7: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2000920,00.html](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2000920,00.html)
+[8: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/31/410532066/in-norway-a-prison-built-on-second-chances](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/31/410532066/in-norway-a-prison-built-on-second-chances)
diff --git a/content/post/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md b/content/post/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1fa4236
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+title: "Future-Proof Digital Timestamping"
+date: 2021-11-13T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Synthetic Media
+The internet will soon face a huge problem. AI-generated media, aka synthetic media, is becoming harder to distinguish from human-generated media. Synthetic articles shared on social media have topped the charts with readers entirely unaware what they're reading is synthetic. The amount of synthetic media posted online keeps increasing every year. Even big tech platforms and DARPA have ramped up their deepfake detection efforts.
+
+What will be the outcome of this? Well it will definitely be a cat-and-mouse game for a while. Big tech and governments will spend millions to detect fakes. But they're only delaying the inevitable. Any deepfake detection scheme can be used to train a better AI to fool it. It will eventually be practically impossible to detect fakes. It's only a matter of time.
+
+For online content that isn't widely witnessed, like my online journal, it'll be impossible for future viewers to be sure that a human being created it. Since AI will be able to generate unlimited convincing fake media, that will diminish the value of any media that can't be verified as human in origin.
+
+So I decided I wanted to give future readers and internet historians a way to verify definitively that this journal was written by a human. That way it doesn't blend into the background of all the convincing synthetic media that will surely populate the internet soon enough.
+
+# OpenTimestamps
+It occurred to me that because today's AI couldn't possibly generate my journal articles, if I timestamped my journal, that would prove to future readers that it's human-made. So I started looking for software that could do that.
+
+I didn't want to use some centralized service to perform the timestamping because of 2 reasons:
+
+* It could go offline.
+* It would have to be trusted.
+
+Then I found OpenTimestamps.[1] It's based on Bitcoin, which I don't like. I've encouraged people to avoid using proof-of-waste cryptocurrencies before.[2] I don't feel great about using software that relies on a planet-roasting cryptocurrency, but there's just no other way I know of to create trustless, decentralized, verifiable timestamps.
+
+Also, OpenTimestamps has an extremely efficient design compared to other Bitcoin timestamping schemes. Thanks to OpenTimestamps' clever use of merkle trees[3], it can timestamp unlimited data using only 1 transaction. Other Bitcoin timestamping software uses 1 transaction per timestamp, an extremely wasteful, inefficient design. At least OpenTimestamps isn't that bad.
+
+So anyway, I created a timestamped Git commit and tagged it timestamp-1[4]. I wrote the concatenated commit data of the timestamped commit to a file[5] in case you're interested to see what it looks like. The software works in a very elegant fashion. It even maintains compatibility with non-OpenTimestamps Git clients, so GnuPG can still verify the commit signature.
+
+The base64-encoded timestamp appended to the commit data includes all the necessary hashes to build the merkle path from the tagged commit to the merkle root included in the Bitcoin transaction. Using './ots --git-extract <filename>' on any file in the nicksphere-gmi repo present at the timestamped commit, you can extract an ots proof file which you can then verify with './ots --verify <filename>'.
+
+Thus future readers of my journal and historians will be able to verify that each entry was written by a human with no major external dependency other than the widely witnessed Bitcoin ledger. There are caveats to that, but luckily I thought up ways around all of them.
+
+# Caveats
+## SHAttered
+If you're familiar with Git's crypto, you know it still uses SHA-1, which is SHAttered.[6] Since OpenTimestamps uses the Git commit data for timestamping commits, it also uses SHA-1. Unless you've enabled experimental SHA-2 support, which no code hosting platforms support, then SHA-1 is the best OpenTimestamps can do for Git repos.
+
+As it turns out, SHA-1 is still good enough for OpenTimestamps.[7] Since there's no preimage attack against SHA-1, OpenTimestamps is unaffected. Meaning the timestamp I created for this journal still has meaning. Nonetheless I'll eventually redo the timestamp when Git supports SHA-2, just to future-proof it.
+
+## Bitcoin Falling Out of Favor
+There's actually another problem with OpenTimestamps: It depends on Bitcoin. Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency. Don't get me wrong, it was great for its time. But by today's standards, it has several severe design flaws:
+
+* Not anonymous - blockchain is transparent.
+* Environmentally destructive - uses proof of work.
+* The mining is undemocratic - ASICs required.
+* Value isn't backed by an asset or service - no smart contracts.
+
+With all these design flaws, Bitcoin should've fallen out of favor years ago. Supposing people come to their senses and it does fall out of favor, it will lose its value. Then miners will quit mining. There will be nothing to secure the blockchain and it will be possible to rewrite blockchain history. Thus the timestamps won't be secure.
+
+Luckily, there's a clever way to preserve the timestamps, even after Bitcoin is no longer secured by miners. It's a technique I call 'timestamp chaining'. The idea is simple. Before the blockchain becomes insecure due to lack of mining, digitally timestamp the whole ledger. Then embed that timestamp inside its successor ledger.
+
+Just as timestamping my journal before AI could've generated it proves it was written by a human, timestamping the Bitcoin blockchain before it becomes insecure proves which blocks were really included. If Bitcoin's successor falls out of favor, the process can simply be repeated. This creates a secure chain of timestamps from the most recent distributed ledger all the way back to the timestamp embedded in today's Bitcoin ledger.
+
+All this assumes distributed ledgers stick around. If there's any gap in the timestamp chain where there's no distributed ledger to put the latest timestamp in, then the entire chain is invalidated. This would be bad because Bitcoin timestamps are used to carbon date much of the internet (archive.org)[8]. The timestamps will be extremely useful to future internet historians.
+
+In order to verify the timestamp chain, you need to know roughly around what time each ledger in the chain stopped being secure. That way you can check that it was timestamped before that date. As long as you stick to widely witnessed ledgers, this shouldn't pose a problem. This whole process can be automated. But it's not yet necessary as Bitcoin still hasn't fallen from grace.
+
+## Quantum Computing
+But what about quantum computers? Won't they invalidate the timestamps? No. Timestamp chaining is also quantum-secure, given quantum-resistant ledgers are in use before quantum computing becomes practical. Research on quantum-resistant distributed ledgers has been underway for years[9], so I estimate a very high probability it will be ready.
+
+It doesn't even matter if all the underlying cryptographic primitives of the ledgers in the timestamp chain are broken by quantum computers. As long as the most recent ledger used in the timestamp chain is quantum-secure and there are no gaps in the timestamp chain, timestamps going all the way back to Bitcoin will be verifiable. SHA-256 is the only primitive relied upon for timestamping and it's thought to be quantum-secure already.
+
+# Conclusion
+This journal's timestamp is not yet future-proof because it still uses SHA-1. When Git supports SHA-2, I plan on creating a new timestamp. I don't think SHA-2 preimage resistance will be broken any time soon and I think distributed ledgers will still be popular for years to come. So if you want to create a trustless, future-proof, unforgeable digital timestamp, timestamp chaining seems like the way to go.
+
+Future internet historians will have many methods of verifying when some digital media was created. They probably won't be limited to verifying timestamp chains. While timestamps offer the strongest assurance that media isn't synthetic, it's not like your digital work will necessarily be indistiguishable from synthetic media just because you didn't timestamp it.
+
+I just decided to timestamp my journal to create that extra assurance that it's not synthetic. That was the primary reason. The synthetic internet might arrive in 10 years or 50 years. Since I have no way to know, it seemed best to create a verifiable timestamp now, before GPT-4 gets released.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: OpenTimestamps](https://opentimestamps.org/)
+[2: Avoid Using Cryptocurrency](../../../../2021/07/18/avoid-using-cryptocurrency/)
+[3: OpenTimestamps Merkle Trees](https://petertodd.org/2016/opentimestamps-announcement#merkle-trees)
+[4: Timestamp Tag](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-gmi/tag/?h=timestamp-1)
+[5: Timestamp Commit Data](../../../../resource/timestamp-1.txt)
+[6: SHAttered](https://shattered.io/)
+[7: SHA1 Is Broken, But It's Still Good Enough for OpenTimestamps](https://petertodd.org/2017/sha1-and-opentimestamps-proofs)
+[8: How OpenTimestamps 'Carbon Dated' (almost) The Entire Internet With One Bitcoin Transaction](https://petertodd.org/2017/carbon-dating-the-internet-archive-with-opentimestamps)
+[9: Post-Quantum Monero](https://github.com/insight-decentralized-consensus-lab/post-quantum-monero)
diff --git a/content/post/gemini-appreciation-entry.md b/content/post/gemini-appreciation-entry.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..389507c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/gemini-appreciation-entry.md
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+---
+title: "Gemini Appreciation Entry"
+date: 2022-04-26T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+I said I'd make an entry about Gemini[1]. This is that entry.
+
+# Gemini vs Web
+If you're reading this on the Web, then you might not be familiar with what Gemini is. Gemini is an alternative to the Web. It's similar to the Web, but more secure and private with far fewer features.
+
+Now you might think "Why would you want to use something with less features?". Well for one, it doesn't lend itself to commercialization, which instantly eliminates almost all the bullshit you find on the Web. Gemini has no ads, no popups, no paywalls, no commercials, it's non-addictive, you're never asked to sign up, and nobody tries to sell you anything. Overall it's a more pleasant browsing experience.
+
+By comparison, the Web is practically unusable in freedom and privacy. Instead of telling you about it, I found this great website which accurately depicts the modern Web browsing experience. It's called How I Experience The Web Today[2].
+
+I have to point out this comparison I'm making between Gemini and the Web is apples to oranges. It's not fair. The Web fulfills far more use cases than Gemini ever will. There's a reason it's so popular and Gemini isn't. But in some sense, Gemini's lack of features is what's appealing about it. Gemini is minimalist. The Web is overwhelming. But I don't want to spend this entire entry comparing Gemini to the Web. It deserves its own independent evaluation.
+
+# Gemini
+To use Gemini, you can download a Gemini client, also known as a Gemini browser. So far, I've used Amfora and Lagrange and they're both pretty good. Amfora is for those who love the terminal and Lagrange is for normal people.
+
+Now that you know how to access Gemini, let's talk about what's on there. In a single word, text. That's all you'll find on Gemini. A whole bunch of text. You can find other types of media, but they won't be displayed inline. So you get what you'd expect with a text-only, non-commercial Web-like protocol. You get gemlogs (the equivalent of Weblogs) talking about people's personal lives, philosophy, poetry, ramblings, ascii art, and of course, technology.
+
+The organization resembles that of the early Web. Search engines exist, but they don't seem to be the primary way people find things. It's mainly through Gemini communities like Flounder[3] and Geminauts linking to other Geminaut's capsules. It's common for Geminauts to make lists of recommended capsules for readers to explore, with a few centralized hubs and aggregators linking to many capsules. Thus it seems reasonable to assume Gemini resembles a small-world network[4].
+
+The small-worldiness of Gemini reminds me very much of Neocities[5], which you should definitely check out if you never have before. If you're like me though and you find the Web overwhelming, Neocities is even more than your average website. That's why I can't spend too long browsing around on there, whereas I can spend hours on Gemini and not mentally tire out.
+
+There's some non-English capsules out there that are good to read if you're trying to learn the language. Gemini is a good way to find others who are open to discussion and collaboration. Most Geminauts put their email on their capsule. Every Geminaut I've sent emails to or received emails from has been friendly.
+
+# The Medium is the Message
+Gemini reminds me of this phrase coined by Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan:
+
+> "The medium is the message".[6]
+
+What he meant was that most of us focus entirely on the contents of the message. We forget about the communication medium in which we encounter it. This is to say that the same message in a different communication medium isn't really the same message. The medium may in fact be more important than the message itself.
+
+## Twitter
+Consider Twitter. If you pay attention to Twitter as a communication medium, one of the first things you notice is that nothing exceeds 280 characters. So there's really not any room for complex thought on Twitter. There's definitely not room for thoughts that require a lot of background or explanation. Twitter just doesn't lend itself to those things. You have to leave Twitter to get that.
+
+Some design decisions are less obvious. Twitter has infinite scroll, not pagination. This encourages users to get hooked, to keep on scrolling, without giving them a natural point to pause and decide if they really want to keep browsing. That and other design features mean that Twitter (and basically all big tech platforms) doesn't lend itself to use in moderation. It's designed to turn people into addicts.
+
+## Youtube
+Youtube has popups which you get if you're not signed in. Youtube hopes the popups will annoy you to the point you just give in. That's because they want to surveil and track you easier. Videos autoplay so you don't have a natural stopping point. This is a reflection of Youtube's values in the same way that infinite scroll reflects Twitter's values. Their goal is to keep you hooked for as long as possible so you watch more ads, they get more data on you, and they make more money.
+
+Every big tech social media platform makes thousands of little design decisions which you may not even recognize are decisions someone has made, and even if you do notice them you might not think they make a difference, but these companies have unlimited resources that they use to micro-engineer every change to the site. They know, quantitatively, exactly how much difference their design choices make in keeping you (and your children) hooked on their platforms.
+
+Many people have expressed grave concerns about the way Youtube organizes videos for people to watch. Apparently it leads people down "rabbit holes" where the videos become more and more extreme, more radicalized, and more reactive. How many people who watch Youtube even stop to consider how it organizes the related videos? We need to start questioning more how online platforms themselves influence us, not just the messages on those platforms.
+
+## Gemini
+I could go on all day about big tech, but let's bring it back to Gemini. How is Gemini designed? What message does it communicate?
+
+### Text-Based
+The first thing I notice about Gemini is that it's text-based. On Gemini, you read. You don't look at or watch. Reading is an active process that requires focused attention. So when you're on Gemini, you're on Gemini. You're not doing 10 other things at the same time. If you're on Youtube, you might have other browser tabs open, only half paying attention to the video.
+
+### Non-addictive
+The second thing that stands out to me about Gemini is there's no rating system. On major social media networks, you have posts, comments, likes/dislikes, reactions, and replies. On Gemini, there's none of that. When you explore a capsule, you explore one person's thoughts at a time, in a linear fashion, with focused attention. Since one's focused attention is a scarce resource, Gemini is naturally non-addictive.
+
+### Non-Distracting
+Not only is Gemini non-addictive, but it's also non-distracting. When I'm on a Gemini capsule, I don't have to mentally filter out sidebars, popups, color schemes, video thumbnails, and all the other busyness on the page. Without all those distractions, it's easier to focus and not get distracted.
+
+Importantly, Gemtext (Gemini text media type) still allows for sufficient formatting options to differentiate text. It has:
+
+* Regular text
+* Preformatted text
+* Quotes
+* Bulleted lists
+* Links
+* 3 different headings
+
+and support for multiple languages. It's useful, while not lending itself to overly busy pages.
+
+### No Hivemind
+And then there's hiveminds. Online platforms like Facebook and Reddit especially seem to create self-selected communities where all members conform to certain opinions or else face being ostracized. Thanks to the lack of built-in interactivity on Gemini, there seems to be a lack of hivemind as well.
+
+### No Rating System or Censorship
+There's no such thing as being "downvoted to oblivion". Since there's no ads, you're not at risk of gaining or losing ad revenue for sharing unpopular opinions. You don't get points or karma. You don't have to post under your real name. You're free to say anything you want and the worst you'll get is a nasty email.
+
+Notably, I haven't seen anyone complain about censorship on Gemini. I attribute the apparent lack of censorship to 3 things:
+
+1. There aren't many people publishing on Gemini.
+2. Gemini doesn't seem to attract the people who get censored.
+3. Geminauts are, on average, more technical than non-Geminauts. Most of us can just self-host if we're banned by a hosting provider.
+
+The only way you can be censored on Gemini right now is other Geminauts refusing to link to your capsule. That's about it.
+
+## What Gemini Teaches Us
+So what exactly does the Gemini medium communicate to us?
+
+I think it can be summed up in a single phrase:
+
+> "Less is more."
+
+To the Gemi-not, Gemini seems archaic, it's lack of features a hindrance that makes it not worth using in modern times. But to Gemi-nauts, it's simplicity is exactly what makes it so appealing. It's not so simple that it's uninteresting, but it's not so complex that it's hyperstimulating and addictive. Gemini tries to strike a balance.
+
+# Conclusion
+I think the lesson of Gemini is to stop thinking of the medium and the message as two separate ideas. The way a platform is designed, the features it has, determines the way people interact with each other on it.
+
+Gemini's simplicity itself isn't its appeal. Simplicity alone doesn't make something good. Its the medium created out of that simplicity, and the interactions that simplicity encourages.
+
+As we move forward, creating new mediums of communication for people to explore, we should ask ourselves, "What sort of interactions do we want to promote?". Do we want to promote addiction and reactivity, or kindness and understanding?
+
+The choice is ours.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/)
+[2: How I Experience The Web Today](https://how-i-experience-web-today.com)
+[3: Flounder](//flounder.online)
+[4: Small-world Network](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Small-world_network)
+[5: Neocities](https://neocities.org/browse)
+[6: The Medium is the Message](https://wikiless.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)
diff --git a/content/post/get-an-anonymous-phone-number-with-dtmfio.md b/content/post/get-an-anonymous-phone-number-with-dtmfio.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a6f79fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/get-an-anonymous-phone-number-with-dtmfio.md
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+title: "Get an Anonymous Phone Number with DTMF.io"
+date: 2020-11-21T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# ATTENTION
+DTMF.io has shut down. Links to the website have been replaced with archival links.
+
+# Disclaimer
+I am not in any way affiliated with DTMF.io[1]. I was not paid to write this (I wish). If I am paid to write about something, I will always disclose it. I will never write things I do not agree with for money. I just happen to think DTMF.io[2] is a good service and people ought to know about it.
+
+# Purpose
+One reason I feel compelled to write about privacy and anonymity is there are so many poorly researched guides out there that don't offer real anonymity, but advertise that they do. Existing guides either have a freedom[3] issue, privacy issue, or other issue which makes them less than ideal. DTMF.io[4] really impressed me, so I decided to share it with all of you. Also, I plan on writing a guide on anonymous ecommerce in the future. When I do that, this post will make a good reference since a phone number is required in many cases when doing ecommerce.
+
+Sometimes I get asked why I insist on such high standards of anonymity, privacy and freedom in everything. What on earth kind of threat model do I have to insist on such high standards? No, I don't possess state secrets or anything of that level. If I did, I wouldn't be blogging about Big Brother since Big Brother is probably on the list of keywords that gets flagged by 3 letter agencies[5]. My philosophy on this actually aligns pretty closely with Richard Stallman[6]. I'm just very ethically motivated. Specifically, it's a matter of preserving my freedom[7] and resisting Big Brother. It's not just that I want to resist Big Brother. I think everyone ought to hold high standards like I do in order to raise the bar on privacy[8] and protect democracy.
+
+# Problems with Existing Anonymous Phone Number Guides
+I'll begin by pointing out a few problems with existing guides out there for obtaining an anonymous phone number. Let's take a look at appsverse[9] as a case study. Their first method for getting an untraceable phone number is a burner phone.
+
+## Why Not Use Burner Phones?
+There are 3 major problems that come to mind with burner phones:
+
+1. They are materially wasteful[10]. All the effort that went into manufacturing the burner phone and it's just going to be used temporarily, perhaps just once, then become e-waste. They're bad for the environment.
+2. They run proprietary[11] operating systems and software. This is bad for your freedom. Because of their freedom issues, there's no way to ensure they don't covertly surveil you. The whole point is that they're supposed to be anonymous, so this is kind of self-defeating.
+3. You'll need to remove the batteries or put the phone in a faraday bag when you aren't using it. Turning it off isn't effective since you might accidentally hit the power button. Since we're trying to preserve the number's anonymity against Big Brother, it can't ping nearby cell towers at places you're associated with. You can't send or receive sms or calls unless you take it out of the bag, so you'll have to only use it at a remote location. Going to a remote location just to make a call or check your messages is very inconvenient.
+
+## Just Hide My Caller ID?
+The second method appsverse suggests is hiding your caller ID. This isn't anonymous against Big Brother so we can disregard it.
+
+## What About Apps?
+Method 3 is phone apps. Appsverse recommends phoner, which is a proprietary app that give you burner phone numbers. The problem is most of these apps are proprietary and you should never install them. Don't go through the Goo-lag Play Store or crApple App Store looking for burner phone number apps. Almost all of them are proprietary garbage. Another example is Burnerapp.com[12]. It's proprietary and requires your name, email and phone number tied to your real identity. Also, there's no way to pay anonymously. How can your phone number be truly anonymous if you have to identify yourself to get it?
+
+# SMS Privacy
+SMSPrivacy.org[13] is worth a mention. You can send and receive sms messages over a web interface. The sign up process doesn't require providing any personal information. It has a v2 onion address[14] and doesn't require Javascript which is always a plus. The only gripe I have is the price. 0.0015 BTC per day per phone number is asking too much for most people. It's even more expensive for a physical phone number that you can use to sign up for websites.
+
+# Introducing DTMF.io
+DTMF.io[15] is the best service I've come across for an anonymous phone number. Like SMS Privacy, it can be accessed over a web portal. There is no third party Javascript. The web portal is available in several languages. It requires no personally identifiable information[16] (PII) to sign up and supports 2-factor authentication. Unlike SMS Privacy, it has a more reasonable price tag. It has a v3 onion address[17] for Tor. It supplies landline, mobile, SIM mobile and toll-free phone numbers from all over the world. You can pay with Bitcoin, Lightning, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero and Perfect Money. Monero support is a huge plus since it's the only cryptocurrency with private payments by default. You can also make calls using SIP or your web browser. SIP is convenient because it allows you to bypass the Javascript trap[18] of using the web portal. Like SMS Privacy, it does not require you to enable Javascript in the browser for sign up or sms, although calling won't work without it. DTMF.io has an API available to pro and business customers allowing automated account control, sms and calling. Their terms of service[19] and privacy policy[20] seem reasonable enough. You can't expect much privacy using sms anyway, which is why I can't recommend using it for very much except maybe website sign up and only if it's required. I also recommend you avoid sharing PII using your anonymous number. Keep in mind a social graph could still be constructed of which numbers you're contacting and at what time. To reduce linkability, you should use a different number for each website you sign up for, if you can afford it.
+
+I know I criticized using apps for an anonymous number before, but that's because they are proprietary. DTMF.io supports SIP. So, you can use free (as in freedom) SIP calling apps to make calls or you can use the official free (as in freedom) DTMF.io app[21] for sms and calling currently available on Android. You can build it from source for Android, iOS, Windows, Mac and GNU/Linux. Voice calls aren't currently supported in Windows or GNU/Linux though. It does not require Goolag Play Services and only asks for permissions it needs. It will even work without camera, microphone or contacts permissions enabled.
+
+The only recommendation I'd make if you plan on using it is that you pay anonymously and don't provide an identifying email address on sign up. Also, if you use the Android app, you should proxy the connection over a VPN or Tor (with Orbot[22]) that way the service never gets your real IP address. Use Tor Browser with the onion address to access it over the web. Other than that I don't know what more you can ask for. The other anonymous phone number services (except for SMS Privacy) either don't allow you to pay anonymously, require identifying information, have proprietary Javascript, or some other problem that makes them unsuitable. As far as I can tell, DTMF.io is the only game in town for a cheap, ethical, anonymous phone number. If you're using anything else, you should definitely make the switch.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/)
+[2: https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/)
+[3: /2020/10/20/use-free-software](../../../../2020/10/20/use-free-software/)
+[4: https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the_United_States](https://wikiless.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the_United_States)
+[6: https://stallman.org/](https://stallman.org/)
+[7: /2020/10/20/use-free-software](../../../../2020/10/20/use-free-software/)
+[8: /2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy](../../../../2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy/)
+[9: https://www.appsverse.com/blog/heres-how-to-get-an-untraceable-phone-number/](https://www.appsverse.com/blog/heres-how-to-get-an-untraceable-phone-number/)
+[10: https://www.androidauthority.com/owning-smartphone-human-environment-cost-656030/](https://www.androidauthority.com/owning-smartphone-human-environment-cost-656030/)
+[11: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/)
+[12: https://www.burnerapp.com](https://www.burnerapp.com)
+[13: https://smsprivacy.org/](https://smsprivacy.org/)
+[14: http://smspriv6fynj23u6.onion/](http://smspriv6fynj23u6.onion/)
+[15: https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/)
+[16: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information)
+[17: http://dtmfiovjh42uviqez6qn75igbagtiyo724hy3rdxm77dy2m5tt7lbaqd.onion/](http://dtmfiovjh42uviqez6qn75igbagtiyo724hy3rdxm77dy2m5tt7lbaqd.onion/)
+[18: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html)
+[19: https://web.archive.org/web/20210506055108id_/https://dtmf.io/terms](https://web.archive.org/web/20210506055108id_/https://dtmf.io/terms)
+[20: https://web.archive.org/web/20210506063909id_/https://dtmf.io/privacy](https://web.archive.org/web/20210506063909id_/https://dtmf.io/privacy)
+[21: https://web.archive.org/web/20201030213136id_/https://dtmf.io/app](https://web.archive.org/web/20201030213136id_/https://dtmf.io/app)
+[22: https://guardianproject.info/apps/org.torproject.android/](https://guardianproject.info/apps/org.torproject.android/)
diff --git a/content/post/get-the-vaccine.md b/content/post/get-the-vaccine.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4782ed4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/get-the-vaccine.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: "Get the Vaccine"
+date: 2021-06-28T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+This is a short post encouraging all people that are eligible to get the Covid-19 vaccine.
+
+# My Vaccination Experience
+I got the Moderna vaccine, so I received the second shot one month apart from the first. I got the first in mid-April and the second in mid-May. I didn't even notice the first shot. The second shot made me ill for a few days as expected. The side effects were unpleasant and I did nothing but lie down until I got better and that was the end of it. I was happy to get it over with.
+
+# Covid Variants
+But I get it. Nobody likes being ill. Nobody likes getting shots. But getting your vaccination is a matter of personal and public safety. You're not only putting your own life at risk by not getting the vaccine, you're also risking the community by being a potential host for a more dangerous variant of Covid. The super-contagious delta variant from India is now spreading throughout the world. It's only going to get worse the more people that put off getting vaccinated.
+
+According to the CDC, only 66% of American adults are vaccinated[1]. Dr. Anthony Fauci's guess was that 70-85% of the entire US population needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, but that was before the delta variant. It's likely higher now making it even more important for you to get vaccinated. If you still think "waiting to see what happens" is the safer bet, consider that you might catch Covid and die while waiting. It's not clever or safer. You're just playing Russian roulette with a dangerous virus.
+
+# Safety Concerns
+Many people have heard that the vaccine is experimental, risky, and that people have died from it. So let me address those concerns directly.
+
+The Covid-19 vaccines are new mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines do not contain the virus as other vaccines do. mRNA vaccines instruct cells to make a protein. The immune system recognizes that protein as not belonging in the body and makes antibodies for it. Then you're protected against Covid-19 without ever catching it. As the CDC website explains[2], these vaccines are new, but they are not unknown. Researchers have been studying mRNA vaccines for decades.
+
+The vaccines available to the public have gone through months of trials being tested on hundreds of thousands of people with no indication that they are unsafe. Hundreds of millions more have been fully vaccinated since, still with no indication that the vaccines are unsafe.
+
+Even if you're still unsure, keep in mind that the vaccine doesn't need to be perfectly safe. It just needs to be safer than Covid. There's a reason the vaccines were granted emergency use authorization. With Covid spreading rapidly and making people dead and disabled, it was imperative to roll out vaccines as fast as humanly possible to prevent the loss of life and the loss of quality of life.
+
+Imagine the researchers that put hard work into creating a safe vaccine for everybody knowing that a delay of even one day would mean thousands more dead. Imagine the months it took to get it emergency approved while people sacrificed their mental health not seeing friends or family while social distancing. Imagine the thousands of people that took the real risk in those very first trials. All of that sacrifice for a third of the general public to decide not to take it?
+
+# Summary
+In summary, we have this amazing technology (mRNA vaccines) that can train the immune system against viruses. It has been studied for decades. There's no indication that it's unsafe even after hundreds of millions have been injected with it. There's every indication that whatever risk is associated with taking it is by far less than the risk of Covid. So unless you have a special medical condition, you have every reason to get the shot(s). If you haven't got it yet, what are you waiting on?
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: CDC Covid Data Tracker](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations)
+[2: mRNA Vaccines Explained](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html)
diff --git a/content/post/git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github.md b/content/post/git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..49d8c35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Git Is Not Github. Git Is Not Github. Git Is Not Github."
+date: 2022-02-25T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+A common confusion among new programmers is that Git and Github are the same thing, despite dozens of online articles and videos explaining the difference. I was probably in their position once myself, so I'm not assigning blame. I'm writing this entry because I think the conflation of Git and Github is harmful.
+
+Git is a powerful version control tool that makes software development and collaboration easier. Github is a cloud-based repository hosting service operated by corporate monster Micro$oft. Git helps millions of developers write better code. Github sold code to ICE[1], who used it to assist separating families at the border and putting immigrants in cages.
+
+I have said before nobody should use Github[2], especially not people who write free software. If you need a software development platform, use Sourcehut[3]. It has no advertising, tracking, or Javascript. It's 100% free software and it's the fastest and lightest software forge, bar none[4]. And if you don't like Sourcehut, there's other free software forges out there for whatever your needs are.
+
+A morally neutral version control tool being frequently confused with a morally onerous big tech company is bad. More than just technical confusion, it invites moral confusion. Without knowing the difference, new developers may confuse criticism of Github the company with criticism of Git the tool. They will think "Github is bad? It can't be because I use that program and it's helpful to me."
+
+So if you notice a developer using 'Git' and 'Github' interchangeably, chances are they're probably confused. Please correct them and then teach them there are other software forges that also cost nothing but are technically and ethically superior to Github. That way, even if they decide not to switch away from Github, at least they'll know better alternatives exist.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: ICE](https://wikiless.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement)
+[2: Don't Use Github](../../../../2021/05/31/dont-use-github)
+[3: Sourcehut](https://sourcehut.org/)
+[4: Forgeperf](https://forgeperf.org/)
diff --git a/content/post/git-privacy.md b/content/post/git-privacy.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0967143
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/git-privacy.md
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+---
+title: "Git Privacy"
+date: 2021-03-19T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+The text below is comes straight from my Git repository (with slight modifications). Find it at the link below:
+
+[Git Repository][1]
+
+# Git-Privacy
+## Because Git's defaults are bad for your privacy
+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+# ❌ Default Git Privacy ❌
+
+Git has a major privacy problem. With only 3 commands anyone can find out the times and dates (down to the second) someone worked on their Git repo.
+
+```bash
+git clone <target-repo>
+cd <target-repo>
+git log --format=fuller
+```
+
+An unmodified Git repo reveals too much about a developer's life. It reveals what dates and times they made commits and when those commits were modified. Based on that, with some inference techniques, others can deduce when the developer sleeps, their range of likely timezones and roughly how efficient they are as a developer. Combined with other data sets, Git poses a serious privacy issue.
+
+# 📅 Git Timestamps 📅
+Git commit objects[2] have exactly 2 (sometimes 3) timestamps to worry about. I'll get to the 3rd later. Here are the 2 main ones:
+
+* GIT_AUTHOR_DATE represents the time and date the changes were made, not the commit.
+* GIT_COMMITTER_DATE represents the time and date the changes were committed.
+
+## Removing Timestamps For Commits
+
+Git doesn't have a way to remove timestamps, but both the GIT_AUTHOR_DATE and GIT_COMMITTER_DATE can be set to any arbitrary date. For instance 1 Jan 2000 at midnight. This gives maximum privacy. Simply set GIT_AUTHOR_DATE and GIT_COMMITTER_DATE in your shell's environment variables. For Bash:
+
+```bash
+export GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="2000-01-01 00:00:00+0000"
+export GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="2000-01-01 00:00:00+0000"
+```
+
+To make the changes permanent in bash, append the commands to ~/.bashrc:
+
+```bash
+echo -e "export GIT_COMMITTER_DATE=\"2000-01-01 00:00:00+0000\"\nexport GIT_AUTHOR_DATE=\"2000-01-01 00:00:00+0000\"" >> ~/.bashrc
+```
+
+However, if necessary it's just as simple to set both the GIT_AUTHOR_DATE and GIT_COMMITTER_DATE to the real date without the seconds, minutes and hours. This provides greater privacy yet still meaningful timestamps:
+
+```bash
+export GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="$(date +%Y-%m-%d) 00:00:00+0000"
+export GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="$(date +%Y-%m-%d) 00:00:00+0000"
+```
+
+To make the changes permanent in bash, append the commands to ~/.bashrc just as before:
+
+```bash
+echo -e "export GIT_COMMITTER_DATE=\"$(date +%Y-%m-%d) 00:00:00+0000\"\nexport GIT_AUTHOR_DATE=\"$(date +%Y-%m-%d) 00:00:00+0000\"" >> ~/.bashrc
+```
+
+Environment variables don't change after they're set. Therefore the date updates when you open a new shell, not upon a new day.
+
+## 🔑 Removing Timestamps for Digital Signatures 🔑
+
+It's important to digitally sign Git commits and especially releases to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. These signatures contain their own timestamps which can be just as bad for privacy as Git timestamps, especially if every commit is signed.
+
+To automatically 'remove' timestamps in Gnupg signatures in new Git commits, the system time needs to be faked. Luckily Gnupg has a flag for just that: --faked-system-time <iso>. Git needs to run a version of the Gnupg program that always fakes the system time.
+
+To accomplish that a bash script can be placed somewhere in $PATH, for instance /usr/bin/gpg2-git. gpg2-git should contain:
+
+```bash
+gpg2 --faked-system-time <iso>! $@
+```
+
+The <iso> time can be any time after the signing key was generated. For reference, my iso value is 20201130T000000 (30 November 2020 at midnight). My key was created 29 November 2020.
+
+For enhanced privacy, exclude Gnupg version number and comments from signatures in /usr/bin/gpg2-git with:
+
+```bash
+gpg2 --faked-system-time <iso>! --no-emit-version --no-comments $@
+```
+
+And don't forget:
+
+```bash
+chmod +x <path>/gpg2-git
+```
+
+Finally, to make Git use the new gpg2-git program, add the following lines to ~/.gitconfig:
+
+```text
+[gpg]
+        program = gpg2-git
+```
+
+Done. Git will now use a fake system time for every signed commit. Git preserves almost no metadata[3] by design, so privacy is looking pretty good.
+
+# 📝 Additional Notes 📝
+The most popular code hosting platform Github is known to record when commits are pushed[4]. See the ticket about Github contribution activity[5].
+
+Push times aren't really exclusive to Github. It's possible that other code hosting platforms track them outside of the public API. It's easy enough for anyone to crawl a public repo and track push times anyway. Unless the developer controls the code hosting platform then they can't know for certain whether push times are being tracked.
+
+The easiest way to resolve this is don't push any code manually. Instead use a cron job that pushes all repositories to the remotes automatically at midnight.
+
+Environment variables may seem a very crude way to obfuscate Git timestamps. It's possible to use Git hooks to accomplish timestamp obfuscation, but it doesn't work very well since it's still necessary to manually override the date for some Git commands. Git developers need to make timestamp obfuscation a feature of Git to finally resolve the privacy problem.
+
+# License
+This text is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Git Privacy](https://git.nicksphere.ch/git-privacy/tree/README.md)
+[2: https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html#commit-object](https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html#commit-object)
+[3: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ContentLimitations](https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ContentLimitations)
+[4: https://api.github.com/repos/cirosantilli/china-dictatorship/events](https://api.github.com/repos/cirosantilli/china-dictatorship/events)
+[5: https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/142](https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/142)
diff --git a/content/post/goodbye-pgp.md b/content/post/goodbye-pgp.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f7d0aad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/goodbye-pgp.md
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+---
+title: "Goodbye PGP"
+date: 2022-01-03T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Introduction
+I often do research for my journal entries and decide to change or delete them based on what I learn during the writing process. The original title of this entry was actually "The Right Way to Use PGP". After researching PGP more, I came to the conclusion that it's not worth using, which led me to write the Statement of GPG Key Transition.[1]
+
+To keep my Statement of GPG Key Transition concise, I gave no explanation of why I was abandoning PGP. Since it's uncommon for PGP users to just abandon their key, I still want to provide that explanation, which is why I'm writing this.
+
+# Problems With PGP
+I'll proceed giving my reasons for dumping PGP, in no particular order.
+
+## The Web of Trust
+To start with, PGP's Web of Trust (WoT) is a metadata disaster, leaking all contacts to all other contacts. It's barely used and has other drawbacks I won't repeat as they've already been mentioned in the Tor Project mailing lists.[2]
+
+Any cryptographic tool that leaks your contacts without a disclaimer and calls it a feature is bad.
+
+## Keyservers
+Now let's talk about keyservers since they go hand-in-hand with the WoT.
+
+### Signature Spamming
+If your key is on a public keyserver, anybody can generate infinite junk keys to sign yours, making your key unusably bloated. This has led respectable organizations to completely abandon public keyservers in favor of trusted keyservers.[3]
+
+While trusted keyservers are better than public ones, they don't scale. For example, if Gmail were to implement a trusted keyserver, it would be easy to create multiple free accounts to spam a target key.
+
+One way to solve signature spamming while retaining the WoT is to have key owner's manually approve new signatures. Keyservers have instead responded by disallowing 3rd-party signatures on keys, nullifying the WoT.
+
+If you use PGP normally, avoiding keyservers is very hard. How else will you know if someone's key gets revoked? Without keyservers, you won't know, which defeats the whole purpose of PGP.
+
+### Keyring Leakage
+Keyservers are also a metadata disaster. Every time you request keys from a keyserver, the keyserver sees your IP and every key you request.
+
+To protect your contact list from the keyserver, you have to install Parcimonie[4], separate software that refreshes each key in your keyring over Tor at randomized intervals. By the way, Parcimonie hasn't been updated in over a year and a half.
+
+Hopefully all your contacts use Parcimonie too. Otherwise they leak their association with you every time they pull your key. Probably less than 1% of GPG users use it, so your whole keyring is still being leaked no matter what. Sorry.
+
+## Broken Crypto
+PGP also supports the NIST and Brainpool elliptic curves which many security experts believe are backdoored.[5] It shouldn't support those curves in the first place. At the very least, GPG should warn users, but it doesn't.
+
+OpenPGP sacrifices security in the name of backwards-compatibility and standards compliance. It supports broken/outdated algorithms like SHA-1, 3DES, CAST5, and Blowfish. It uses CFB mode and S2K password hashing, which no modern cryptosystem should use.
+
+## Key Expiry
+By default, GPG sets an expiration date on newly generated keys. It's considered good practice, but it forces your contacts to renew your key regularly. Again, that means using a keyserver and leaking their association with you.
+
+## RSA By Default
+Now let's talk about PGP key material. Rather than using the faster, smaller, more secure Curve25519, GPG defaults to 3072-bit RSA.
+
+## Key IDs and Fingerprints
+Many users still have v3 keys, which are insecure because v3 uses spoofable key IDs. But even modern v4 keys rely on SHA-1, a broken cryptographic primitive.[6]
+
+This makes PGP software more error-prone since fingerprints aren't unique, it decreases key longevity, and potentially leaves you open to attack.[7]
+
+## Packet Format
+PGP also uses a variable length packet format which has caused problems in some implementations.[8]
+
+## Compression + Encryption
+The OpenPGP format combines compression and encryption which is a very bad idea. Depending on the context, it may help an attacker decipher your encrypted messages.
+
+## No Deniability
+PGP does not have cryptographic deniability[9] even though it could be implemented. Anyone who receives a signed message from you can prove to others you sent it.
+
+For email encryption, it hardly even matters that PGP lacks deniability. Any half decent email server uses DKIM anyways, which can and has been used to prove email provenance. Unless your email provider rotates and publishes DKIM keys, and most don't, then your emails aren't deniable.
+
+There's also contextual information in the email content along with metadata and IP logs that prove your emails are yours. So the addition of a PGP signature probably doesn't make a practical difference.
+
+If it still bothers you, you can use a regularly rotated signing subkey and publish the private part after it's rotated out. If you do that, you should set an expiry date so those who don't update your subkey aren't fooled by fake signatures.
+
+Of course rotating PGP subkeys is a pain in the ass for you and your correspondents, so you might be better off just not signing your emails.
+
+## Lack of Forward Secrecy
+The email provider cartel comprised of Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, Aol, and others collect and store emails forever. Even if you delete your emails from the trash folder, the major email providers keep copies that are provided to law enforcement at request and sent directly to the NSA. See XKeyscore.[10]
+
+This means if your PGP key is ever compromised, all your emails can be retroactively decrypted. PGP isn't solely to blame though. Email is partially responsible. But if PGP had forward secrecy, email surveillance wouldn't be as bad.
+
+Like signing keys, you can manually rotate encryption subkeys to protect past emails, but it's also a pain in the ass and requires all your contacts to constantly update your key through keyservers.
+
+## No Message Padding
+If that's not enough to convince you not to use PGP for messaging, let me give you another reason. PGP uses CFB, a padding-less encryption mode. That means the exact length of the encrypted message can be recovered by attackers without decrypting the message.
+
+If you use PGP for email, you should at least use PGP/MIME to hide attachment filetypes. Leaking filetype and length is bad, but leaking length alone is still pretty bad since it can be used to infer file and message content.
+
+PGP is also unsuitable for automated decryption since it's vulnerable to padding oracle attacks.[11]
+
+## Lack of Use Cases
+Now let's talk about how PGP's flaws affects its use cases. In summary, it does everything poorly. For every use case, there's a better application-specific tool for the job.
+
+### Secure Messaging
+With its lack of forward secrecy and deniability, dated cryptography, lack of message padding, metadata leakage, and no proper authenticated encryption, PGP is unsuitable for the secure messaging use case. You're better off using an application that incorporates the Double Ratchet[12].
+
+### File Encryption/Signing
+It's bad at file encryption and signing too. You're better off using Age[13] for files and LUKS[14] for encrypted disks and backups.
+
+You might need to keep GPG installed to verify others' software packages. But please don't sign your own releases with GPG. Use Signify[15] instead.
+
+### The Web of Trust
+PGP's WoT is a good example of a non-use case. As I already mentioned, the WoT leaks the user's social graph. Experts mistrust it. It's heavily dependent on keyservers. Nobody uses it, so key signing parties[16] have no practical function other than being a computer nerd circlejerk.
+
+In conclusion, the PGP WoT needs no alternative implementation because the trust model is fundamentally flawed. It's lack of use is a testament to its uselessness.
+
+### Digital Identity
+In general, PGP's whole notion of digital identity offers very limited usefulness.
+
+Since nobody uses the WoT, PGP users most often trust on first use[17], discovering others' keys through public forums, blogs, websites, emails, social media, etc. In the event of account compromise, visitors can be led to phony keys.
+
+Users who already possess the correct key won't know what to do post-compromise. Why has the key changed? Why isn't it being used to sign things anymore? Will anybody even notice? If I announce that I'm traveling without my key and can't sign journal entries, would you believe it? What if I claim my key is lost and I can't revoke it?
+
+Even if you mistrust everything that isn't signed, most people can be coerced through violence into forking over their private key. How do you know that hasn't happened?
+
+I'm not saying long-term identity keys are useless. I have one myself. I'm also not blaming PGP for people not securing their accounts. I'm just pointing out long-term keys aren't as useful as people think for a form of digital identity.
+
+GPG protects long-term identity keys by allowing users to have online subkeys, which frees up the primary key to be kept offline. But it's not clear to me that subkeys are necessary. Why not use a single key kept on dedicated hardware like a Yubikey? GPG's implementation of subkeys can certainly be improved. It's so lacking that it forces some users to rely on multiple keys.[18]
+
+### SSH
+For the SSH use case, the GPG agent can be used for SSH authentication. However, OpenSSH already provides a remote login client capable of key generation that comes pre-installed on popular Linux distros.
+
+The OpenSSH server also doesn't have a concept of key revocation or expiry. It can't because that might leave clients locked out. Revoking compromised keys does nothing to stop attackers from SSH'ing into servers, which may cause confusion.
+
+### Password Management
+For password management, there's no reason to use GPG either. The standard Unix password manager Pass[19] depends on GPG2, but there's a fork of it called Passage[20] which uses Age instead.
+
+There are also other password managers which don't depend on PGP or Age and they support a command-line interface just like Pass and Passage. Again, PGP isn't needed for this use case.
+
+### Organizational Security
+OpenPGP CA[21] is PGP software for organizations. It uses sequoia-pgp[22], which seems to be an improvement over GPG.
+
+For intra-organizational communication, there are so many secure messaging platforms which are better than PGP over Email. No organization should rely on PGP over email for internal communications. Period.
+
+There are already mature identity management systems for organizations such as OpenLDAP[23]. I'm no sysadmin but I'm sure there's plenty of non-PGP dependent software which can meet organizational needs.
+
+### Application Development
+When developing applications that require cryptography, there are libraries like Libsodium[24]. It's modern, portable, easy to use, and just better. There's no excuse for including PGP in a new application.
+
+### Email
+As for the encrypted email use case, PGP is pretty much the only way to send end-to-end encrypted emails right now, thanks to the Network Effect[25].
+
+If you have no other choice but to use email and you use PGP to encrypt, I won't fault you for it. It's what's available and widely used. But do it at your own risk.
+
+Thanks to the reckless infinite scope of the web[26], it's common for emails to have embedded HTML. Please don't embed HTML when you send emails.[27] Popular email clients now ship with web engines, bringing all the web's stupidity to email. This has led to several web-related PGP vulnerabilities in email clients. See Efail.[28]
+
+# Conclusion
+With that, I think I've covered good alternatives for all the primary use cases of PGP.
+
+If PGP were released today, it wouldn't be used. The only reasons it's used are:
+
+1. It has been grandfathered in.
+2. The network effect keeps it going.
+
+It's archaic. It's insecure. Everything it does, it does poorly. The reference implementation (GPG) is a mess. And there are better alternatives. So I'm done using it and I'm embarrassed it took me this long to stop.
+
+Goodbye PGP.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Statement of GPG Key Transition](../../../../2021/12/30/statement-of-gpg-key-transition)
+[2: Problems With The Web of Trust](https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2013-September/030235.html)
+[3: The Keyserver is Dead. Long Live the Keyserver!](https://mailbox.org/en/post/the-keyserver-is-dead-long-live-the-keyserver)
+[4: Parcimonie](https://manpages.debian.org/bullseye/parcimonie/parcimonie.1p.en.html)
+[5: Safe Curves](https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/)
+[6: SHAttered](https://shattered.io/)
+[7: GPG Keys SHA-1](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/68105/gpg-keys-sha-1)
+[8: PGP Packet Format](https://nitter.net/lambdafu/status/1147162583969009664)
+[8: PGP Compression + Encryption](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/43413/is-it-safe-for-gpg-to-compress-all-messages-prior-to-encryption-by-default)
+[9: Cryptographic Deniability](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption)
+[10: XKeyscore](https://wikiless.org/wiki/XKeyscore)
+[11: Padding Oracle Attack](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Padding_oracle_attack)
+[12: Double Ratchet](https://signal.org/docs/specifications/doubleratchet/)
+[13: Age Encryption](https://github.com/FiloSottile/age)
+[14: LUKS](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup)
+[15: Signify](https://man.openbsd.org/signify)
+[16: Key Signing Parties](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Key_signing_party)
+[17: Trust On First Use](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Trust_on_first_use)
+[18: PGP Encryption Subkeys](https://zeroindexed.com/pgp-encryption-subkeys)
+[19: Pass](https://www.passwordstore.org/)
+[20: Passage](https://github.com/FiloSottile/passage)
+[21: OpenPGP CA](https://openpgp-ca.org)
+[22: Sequoia PGP](https://sequoia-pgp.org/)
+[23: OpenLDAP](https://www.openldap.org/)
+[24: Libsodium](https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium)
+[25: The Network Effect](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Network_effect#Software)
+[26: The Reckless, Infinite Scope of Web Browsers](https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html)
+[27: Use Plaintext Email](https://useplaintext.email/)
+[28: Efail](https://efail.de)
diff --git a/content/post/gpl-vs-permissive-licenses.md b/content/post/gpl-vs-permissive-licenses.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a6c0211
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/gpl-vs-permissive-licenses.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "GPL vs Permissive Licenses"
+date: 2022-04-11T00:00:01
+draft: false
+---
+When it comes to the debate between using the GNU General Public License[1] (GPL) or permissive licenses, I choose the GPL and I encourage others to do the same.
+
+The reason I choose the GPL is I don't believe in the freedom to restrict others' freedom. The GPL says "you are free to use this software for any purpose except to restrict others' freedoms". Permissive licenses say "you are free to use this software for any purpose including restricting others' freedoms".
+
+Some people go with permissive licenses just because they want to avoid politics. They're software developers and most developers don't develop software for political crusading. They just like the technical challenge or they have a need for some tool. I understand and sympathize with that, but almost everything is political. Permissive licenses are a political statement, just like the GPL. Although you're trying to be as neutral as possible and with the best of intentions, unfortunately you're still picking sides. It's unavoidable.
+
+But I don't think this should be anxiety-inducing. Just ask yourself a very simple question. What are you okay with people using your software for? That's what the license is for. Are you okay with people using your software to gain power over others and restrict them, or not? If more people using your software is more important than user freedom to you, go with a permissive license. Otherwise go with the GPL.
+
+Even if you won't sue when someone violates the license, it's still good to have the license that best aligns with your intentions because it lets everyone know where you stand. If you don't put a license, developers will avoid using your software, because they don't know what your intentions were in releasing it and they don't want to get sued. So take a few minutes to decide what's important to you, and exemplify that through your license.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: GPL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html)
diff --git a/content/post/how-extreme-wealth-inequality-harms-the-wealthy.md b/content/post/how-extreme-wealth-inequality-harms-the-wealthy.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0406bab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/how-extreme-wealth-inequality-harms-the-wealthy.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+title: "How Extreme Wealth Inequality Harms The Wealthy"
+date: 2022-04-18T00:00:01
+draft: false
+---
+Something people who think about wealth inequality don't often consider is just how much it harms the wealthy. The implicit assumption is that wealth inequality always benefits the wealthy, but upon even superficial consideration, it's obvious that it doesn't.
+
+# How Wealth Inequality Harms The Wealthy
+## Less Creative, Intelligent People
+More wealth inequality means less people can afford higher education. Therefore there are less creative, intelligent people curing diseases, improving technology, making art, writing novels, and figuring out how to solve problems. Imagine all the wasted potential.
+
+It doesn't matter how many billions you have. Once you get cancer, there is no surefire cure. Maybe we would have one with more intelligent people working on it. When intelligent people are forced to waste all their time performing bullshit jobs[1] just to survive, they don't have the time or energy to do important work.
+
+## Sleep Deprivation And Exhaustion
+When people are forced to work constantly and accept interruptions by work during non-work hours[2], they become exhausted and sleep deprived, which leads to all sorts of negative consequences to the brain[3].
+
+To name a few, there are deficits in attention and working memory, irritability, depression, anxiety, severely impaired driving ability, insomnia, microsleeping, brain-localized sleeping, obesity, hypertension, a weak immune system, diabetes, headaches, mania, and many other effects.
+
+Sleep deprivation is so harmful to a person's health, the U.S. and U.K. governments have used it as a form of torture.[4]
+
+In some countries, retail chains are allowed to be open all hours of the night. So employees sleep during the day, being exposed to bright light which confuses the body's circadian rhythm[5], causing sleep problems and all the negative consequences that come with it.
+
+Even if you're very wealthy, do you really want to interact with people that are irritable, exhausted, and unhealthy? Because that affects you too. Wouldn't you much rather live in a society that gets enough sleep and isn't exhausted from working all the time? Wouldn't that be a happier, more fun place to live?
+
+Life is better when others are thriving, not when they're sleep deprived and exhausted.
+
+# Conclusion
+I'm sure there are more ways wealth inequality harms the wealthy, but those are the ones that come to mind. Extreme wealth inequality is a negative sum game. There are no winners relative to non-extreme wealth inequality.
+
+I'm not completely anti-capitalist and anti-wealth-inequality. I'm anti-extreme-capitalism and anti-extreme-wealth-inequality. I think some wealth inequality can benefit us all, but when it's taken to the extreme, it becomes a real problem that harms everyone, including the wealthy.
+
+If you want to wrap your head around the scale of wealth inequality, please see my previous entry, Visualizing Wealth Inequality And Mass Incarceration[6].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Automation, Bullshit Jobs, And Work](../../../../2022/01/22/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work/)
+[2: Right to Disconnect](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect)
+[3: Consequences of Sleep Deprivation](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Effects_and_consequences)
+[4: Sleep Deprivation For Interrogation](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Interrogation)
+[5: Circadian Rhythm](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm)
+[6: Visualizing Wealth Inequality And Mass Incarceration](../../../../2022/03/05/website-visualizing-wealth-inequality-and-mass-incarceration/)
diff --git a/content/post/how-to-transfer-large-files-from-one-computer-to-another.md b/content/post/how-to-transfer-large-files-from-one-computer-to-another.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4d85db7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/how-to-transfer-large-files-from-one-computer-to-another.md
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+---
+title: "How to Transfer Large Files From One Computer to Another"
+date: 2022-02-24T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# How Not to Transfer Large Files
+The average netizen has no idea how to transfer large files to others securely. And I can't really blame them for their ignorance because most websites instructing how to do it have really bad advice.
+
+## The Corporate Cloud
+For example, there is a WikiHow article[1] that has a few suggestions on how to send large files. The first is uploading your large files to Google Drive and sharing the link. What could possible be wrong with uploading your personal files to a service run by a known surveillance monster which requires you to sign up and give lots of personal information as well as running tracking scripts in your browser?
+
+It also suggests Microsoft Onedrive, which of course is also a service run by a known surveillance monster which requires signing up and giving lots of personal information.
+
+All the suggestions involve using third-party cloud services, trusting company computers with your data. And WikiHow isn't alone in its bad advice. Other online articles give similar advice.
+
+## Email
+Emailing large files to others usually doesn't work due to attachment size limits on either the sender or receiver side. And when it does work it's still highly insecure and cannot be made secure. I discuss how to mitigate the security issues in a separate entry[2], but that's only for if you have no other choice.
+
+Even if you take the precautions laid out in my previous entry about email, the person you're corresponding with almost certainly doesn't. Even if you PGP-encrypt, email services can infer that the email contains a file based on the size. Then they know when you sent the file, who you sent it to, the IP address you sent it from and the IP address that received it, what email client was used to send and receive it and possibly even more.
+
+## Social Media Websites
+People sometimes use ridiculous roundabout methods to transfer large files, such as uploading HD videos to social media such that only the recipient has permission to see the file, waiting for the recipient to download it, then immediately deleting it.
+
+This approach requires the sender and recipient to sign up to the same social media, which is always a hyperaddictive attention-destroying surveillance monster which executes proprietary obfuscript in the browser that surveils and fingerprints users without obtaining meaningful, informed consent[3].
+
+## Messaging Applications
+For small files like photos, videos, and documents, one of the most common ways people transfer them is through messaging applications. The popular messaging apps can't share large files. Even the popular messaging apps in the free software world can't. This is because they have file size limits because they are either federated or centralized and the files have to be stored on remote servers with limited capacity.
+
+If the messaging app is proprietary, which it usually is, then it's probably not much better in terms of privacy and security than uploading your files to the cloud or social media and sharing the link.
+
+# How to Transfer Large Files The "Right" Way
+So how should one transfer files? There are several ways to securely transfer files without relying on centralized data-mining cloud services.
+
+## USB
+If the recipient is in close physical proximity to you and you trust them, you can use a USB drive or external hard drive to transfer large files. To prevent data from getting into the wrong hands later, the USB should have an encrypted, password-protected LUKS volume. For cross-platform support, use FAT32 or NTFS for the filesystem.
+
+FAT32 only supports a 4 GB max file size. If a file is too large for the encrypted volume, Linux offers the split command to split it into smaller, more manageable chunks and the receiving machine only needs the cat command to piece the file back together.
+
+## Magic Wormhole
+If you're far from the recipient, Magic Wormhole[4] is a good option to transfer arbitrarily large files peer to peer. It's also cross-platform and uses PAKE[5], which makes it both secure and easy to use.
+
+## OnionShare
+If you need to transfer large files to multiple remote recipients without revealing your IP address, there's OnionShare[6]. Like Magic Wormhole, it's also secure and cross-platform. Unlike with Magic Wormhole though, only one party (sender or receiver) needs OnionShare installed. The other just needs Tor Browser.
+
+## Torrenting
+If you have large files you want to share with multiple people efficiently and you aren't concerned about confidentiality or protecting your IP address, the fastest way is creating a torrent using any torrent client.
+
+Unlike the client-server architecture used by Magic Wormhole and OnionShare where you act as a server sending the files to the client, peers in a torrent help upload chunks of your file to others who want a copy. Peers can continue to share the file even after you go offline.
+
+## LAN File Sharing
+For computers on the same LAN, there's plenty of software for managing a shared directory of large files. There's Rsync[8], NFS[9], SSHFS[10], Samba[11], and SFTP[12]. 
+
+These programs can also share files to the public internet, but most of you reading this won't have a static public IP address or domain name, so it's irrelevant. I often use Rsync for its versatility, security, and efficient delta-transfer algorithm.
+
+# Conclusion
+Most people still transfer large files using the dumb ways. When I search for the file-sharing tag on Github, I get 947 results. There's plenty of good software out there for transferring large files and lots of it is so easy to use a monkey could figure it out.
+
+There's no excuse for relying on the corporate cloud, email, or social media to transfer large files if you have the choice. Use a real file transfer program instead.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: WikiHow: How to Send Large Files to Another Computer Using the Internet](https://web.archive.org/web/20220223081322id_/https://www.wikihow.com/Send-Large-Files-to-Another-Computer-Using-the-Internet)
+[2: Using Email](../../../../2020/10/29/using-email/)
+[3: Manufacturing Agreement](../../../../2021/08/21/manufacturing-agreement/)
+[4: Magic Wormhole](https://github.com/magic-wormhole/magic-wormhole)
+[5: PAKE](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Password-authenticated_key_agreement)
+[6: OnionShare](https://onionshare.org/)
+[7: PrivateBin](https://privatebin.info/directory/)
+[8: Rsync](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Rsync)
+[9: NFS](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Network_File_System)
+[10: SSHFS](https://wikiless.org/wiki/SSHFS)
+[11: Samba](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Samba_(software))
+[12: SFTP](https://wikiless.org/wiki/SFTP)
diff --git a/content/post/i-wish-i-could-endorse-the-waking-up-app.md b/content/post/i-wish-i-could-endorse-the-waking-up-app.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7f92a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/i-wish-i-could-endorse-the-waking-up-app.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "I Wish I Could Endorse the Waking Up App"
+date: 2021-12-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+If you've been reading my journal for a while, you know I'm a strong proponent of daily meditation practice. I consider meditation equally important as physical exercise. I believe strongly that people should develop a meditation practice and I'm highly skeptical of the claim that "it's not for me". I really can't communicate just how important meditation is better than Sam Harris can. He has practiced meditation for over 30 years (longer than I've existed) and he has studied with meditation masters from all over the world. He put his knowledge into an app called Waking Up.[1]
+
+As a beginner meditator, it can be very difficult to stay on task. It's common to sit there for a half hour trying to meditate only to later realize you were thinking the entire time. There's immense value in having someone there to interrupt you when you're going off-track. Sam explains all this in the first session of the course. Since a lot of people only know what the mainstream media has told them about meditation, I'd like to include a quote from Sam's website to offer a more accurate perspective:
+
+> "The purpose of meditation isn’t merely to de-stress, or to sleep better, or to learn to be a little less neurotic. The purpose is to radically transform your sense of who and what you are." - Sam Harris
+
+I think the Waking Up app is one of the few apps where the marketing doesn't oversell the benefits. If you stick to the program and put in the effort, you can radically transform your experience of the world. It's not just marketing.
+
+Now unfortunately I can't recommend this app because it's proprietary. I've tried to contact Sam several times about this problem only to be met with radio silence. But I think the audios within it deserve to be promoted, for the good of the world. Thankfully some kind soul created a torrent containing the audio files.[2] So it's still possible to access the audios in freedom and that's the only way I recommend doing it. I wish I could recommend the app.
+
+If you benefit from the Waking Up audios, it would help to email Sam[3] letting him know you find the audios useful, but are forced to torrent them rather than paying for a subscription because of the app's freedom issues. Most likely he receives lots of emails and freeing his app won't be high priority for him unless he gets more pressure to do so. It's a shame that the best meditation app out there is non-free. Maybe if enough of us push him on it, he will fix the app.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Waking Up](https://wakingup.com/)
+[2: Magnet link](magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0109B5A9FDAAB8C4EBA1F77FD504F06642576FAC&dn=Waking+Up%3A+A+Meditation+Course&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.dler.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopentracker.i2p.rocks%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F47.ip-51-68-199.eu%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2920%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.pirateparty.gr%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cyberia.is%3A6969%2Fannounce)
+[3: Email Sam Harris](mailto:contact@samharris.org)
diff --git a/content/post/if-you-dont-like-it-then-just-leave.md b/content/post/if-you-dont-like-it-then-just-leave.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..008b48a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/if-you-dont-like-it-then-just-leave.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "\"If You Don't Like It Then Just Leave\""
+date: 2021-11-26T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Being Told to Leave My Country
+I'm getting tired of all the people who tell me to leave my country if I don't like the way it is. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told to leave, but I've never heard it from the mouth of a thoughtful person. There's certain things thoughtful, intelligent people almost never say. "If you don't like it, just leave" is one of those things.
+
+Minorities in particular get told to leave their country a lot. Although they're usually met with a slightly different phrase. Rather than "If you don't like it, then leave", they get "Go back to your country". I'm sure it's more common for them than it is for me as a white American male. The articles I see in the search results for "If you don't like it then leave" are all related to minorities. But I just want to say I also exist. I also get told to leave. Why? Because I disagree with the way things are done here.
+
+It's very telling that nobody ever tells me to go back to my country, as minorities are often told. Because in their mind, America is my country (because I'm white) and minorities are just here on sufferance. It's such a hateful thing to tell someone they don't belong in their birth country. So I'd like to unpack why telling people to leave their own country, or to go back to their country, is not only hateful, but also dumb.
+
+## Leave and Go Where?
+For one, I don't own a private island. I'm not a citizen of any other country. If I did move to another country, it would require quite a bit of effort. My American passport pretty well allows me to go anywhere in the world. But that doesn't mean I can stay. I'd have to obtain a visa. I'd have to figure out what to do with all the stuff I've accumulated. I'd have to figure out my finances. And what about my family that still lives here? It's not as simple as packing up and "just leaving".
+
+## National NIMBYism
+Second, there's things I disagree with in every country. This is not to say all countries are equal. Saying that all countries are equal because they all have problems is idiotic. In countries more civilized than the United States, I might be generally quite satisfied with how things are going. But there is always progress to be made.
+
+So being told to leave seems to amount to nationalistic NIMBYism.[1] I'm allowed to want things to be different, just not things within my own country. I can just as easily reverse the script and say "If you don't like me pointing out flaws in my country then why don't you leave?" and it would be equally ridiculous. There's no civilized country free from citizens' complaints either.
+
+If dissent is such big problem, why do these people not take their own advice and "just move" someplace where open dissent isn't tolerated? Someplace like North Korea or China. Then they wouldn't have to listen to pesky activists trying to improve their country.
+
+## Why is it Always the Country?
+Third, why is it always the "country" I should leave? I find it peculiar that I've never been told to go to a different state, or a different county. There are political differences between separate regions within the same country. I could certainly live in a state or county where I'm more aligned with local politics. Why has no one ever suggested me to move there instead? It would certainly be easier than moving to a different country.
+
+I also never get told to move to a different continent even though that would put me farther away.
+
+## Fixing Problems vs Running Away
+Fourth, why should I flee my country instead of doing things to solve its problems? I can vote. I can sign petitions. I can go to protests and practice civil disobedience. I can join like-minded organizations. Suggesting as the first option that I should just flee isn't very patriotic. Not that I think patriotism is important, but the people who tell me to leave always claim to be patriots. In my opinion, a true patriot wouldn't suggest to others to flee upon sight of problems. Can you imagine if every historical social reformer had just packed their bags and left instead of doing something?
+
+This is not to say fleeing is the wrong choice. As far as I know, moving from one country to another is morally neutral. But to claim to love your country while telling people who notice its problems to leave seems to be a contradiction. Isn't it important to have people in the population who can recognize the country's problems?
+
+## Conflating Constructive Criticism and Hate
+Another thing people say to me is "If you hate it so much here, why don't you just leave?". This also gets really tiring. Why is it that I can't have constructive criticism without hating America? I'm tired of Faux-news-watching nutbags saying young people are being taught to hate America just because we have critical thinking skills. Give me a break.
+
+Some of the people who tell me to leave level just as much criticism towards the United States as I do. But because they don't agree with my criticism, they conclude I must hate my country. The hypocrisy is palpable. People criticize all sorts of things, yet that doesn't mean they hate those things.
+
+# Conclusion
+I've probably given such a dumb phrase more rebuttal than it ever deserves. I'm not going to leave my country unless I decide that's what's best for me. I have just as much right to be here as other citizens. I'll never be convinced to leave by ignoramuses who get distressed when I don't agree with their blind jingoism.
+
+I think I've said everything that I can say about this. To wrap up, just know that if someone tells you that you should leave your country or that you don't belong, they're not worth your time.
+
+
+Links:
+[1: NIMBY](https://wikiless.org/wiki/NIMBY)
diff --git a/content/post/implications-of-synthetic-media.md b/content/post/implications-of-synthetic-media.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..07ae9ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/implications-of-synthetic-media.md
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+title: "Implications of Synthetic Media"
+date: 2022-04-24T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+A few months ago, I wrote an entry titled "The Privacy Implications of Weak AI".[1] This entry is a continuation of my thoughts about AI, specifically synthetic media.
+
+A.I. and automation are subjects people avoid thinking about because they're scary. I can't fault anybody for that because they're right. The way weak AI is already being used is extremely worrying. It doesn't bode well for the future, but we can't find solutions without discussing the problem. So today, I thought I'd explore another way weak A.I. might disrupt society.
+
+In case you're not familiar with the term "deepfake", it refers to AI-generated media[2] (synthetic media) where a person in a picture or video is digitally replaced with somebody else. The goal is for the replacement to be so seemless that it's impossible to tell the difference. Right now, deepfakes[3] are pretty good and they're getting better all the time. This has huge implications.
+
+# Plausible Deniability
+## Blackmail
+You might initially think, as I did, that blackmail will get a lot easier. You won't even need real incriminating photos or videos of someone any more. You can just generate it as needed. But the problem is, every semi-computer-literate person will be able to generate convincing deepfakes. As deepfakes become more common and the public becomes more aware of them, blackmail using photos, videos, audio, etcetera will become impossible because the victim can always plausibly deny it.
+
+Even if you have real blackmail material on someone, all the victim needs to do is claim it's deepfaked and it will be impossible for a third-party to be sure one way or the other without more context. So blackmail will become harder, not easier.
+
+## Law
+I suspect deepfakes will cause photo, video, and audio evidence to be taken less seriously in a court of law. As creating deepfakes becomes easier and more accessible to everyone, courts will increasingly have to rely on contextual information, without taking the authenticity of the media itself for granted.
+
+Sure video, image, and audio editing tools have been around for a while. But it takes resources for humans to fake evidence. It takes skill and time, or at least some money to pay someone else to do it and not tell anybody. Courts have to ask "does the claimant have the resources to fabricate evidence?". It's not trivial, but with deepfakes, it is. Anybody can effortlessly create convincing fakes.
+
+Deepfakes change the game by reducing the cost of creating fakes. In the future, only motive will be required to fake evidence, not resources.
+
+## Nudes
+This one's just a hunch, but I predict sending nudes will become more common given that the nudes will be deniable if they end up in the wrong hands. The original recipient may know that the nudes are real, but will anybody else believe them? So I think the deniability will increase people's willingness to send intimate media.
+
+The software for faking nudes already exists.[4]
+
+# Social Engineering
+But there's more than just increased plausible deniability. Deepfakes will change the social engineering[5] game.
+
+I imagine it like that scene in the first Terminator movie where terminators can fake people's voices after hearing them once. You can just record someone's voice, then train an A.I. to replicate it. Unless there's a law against it, police might use this to trick suspects and obtain information from them.
+
+On the other side of the law, black hat hackers will certainly use deepfakes to social engineer corporations and institutions. In fact, it already happened when a voice deepfake was used to scam a CEO out of $243,000.[6]
+
+# The Infopocalypse
+The central subject which we seem to be orbiting is the infopocalypse. That is, when sockpuppets and deepfakes become absolutely pervasive everywhere on the internet. And I have to mention sockpuppets because they go hand in hand with deepfakes in an important way.
+
+Right now, what prevents bots from overtaking the internet is mainly CAPTCHA[7], phone registration, and bot detection systems. CAPTCHA is a technique to tell humans and computers apart. As A.I. improves, bots will eventually be able to do all the things that humans can do, including passing CAPTCHA. They'll also be able to bypass bot detection and, with some money, buy phone numbers.
+
+We have to assume that as time passes, it will take less and less resources for anyone to create their own personal army of convincing bots. Combining this with deepfakes will make it nearly impossible to tell human from machine. Unless new techniques for bot prevention are developed, online platforms may run rampant with spam, disinformation, and sockpuppets.
+
+So new techniques will have to be developed to tell humans and machines apart and, hopefully, those techniques still allow for online anonymity. Internet protocols and applications will have to be adapted to defend against this new threat model.
+
+I don't want to overstate the problem. Assuming online protocols and platforms find ways to deal with bots, people with good sources will continue seeing reliable information and people with bad sources will continue being brainwashed by nonsense. Bots or no bots, people who check their sources will always be better informed than those who don't. I don't think that aspect is going to change, although it may get more difficult to decide if sources you've been newly introduced to are trustworthy.
+
+# Human-Bot Relationships
+Now, broadening the subject even more to synthetic media as a whole, not just deepfakes, there's another way I believe the social landscape will be radically changed.
+
+Maintaining relationships with real people takes effort. With synthetic media and convincing chat bots, a lot of people will probably opt for relationships with synthetic, digital A.I. systems instead of other human beings. This could be really destructive to the social fabric. The word "loner" will take on a whole new meaning.
+
+What worries me the most is how addictive these A.I. chatbots could potentially be. We've already seen how bad social media and smartphone addiction is. Maybe it's too early to worry about this, but if A.I. chatbots pass the Turing test[8] and become capable of real-time audio and video calls, there will probably be less human connection in society.
+
+If you're looking for some inspiration, two good films depicting human-bot relationships are Her[9] and Ex Machina[10]. Those films both depict A.I. taking human form, which goes a bit outside the scope of synthetic media, but synthetic media by itself probably wouldn't make good film.
+
+# Art and Self-Expression
+Synthetic media will also revolutionize art and self-expression. Imagine online gaming where your face, body, and mannerisms are superimposed onto your avatar. Imagine going to see a movie with you and your friends as stars of the show. Imagine more interactive art.
+
+I don't think synthetic media used for self-expression is necessarily a net good though. Giving people new ways to express themselves is good, but not if they use it as a means of escaping the world like in the movie Ready Player One[11]. We don't want to give people yet another way to be bought off by extreme capitalists and distracted from the problems happening in the real world.
+
+# Conclusion
+Predicting the future is somewhat of a fool's errand. We'll only know for sure how synthetic media is going to transform society as time passes. But, I believe I've made some good predictions, and I hope I at least get more people thinking about it. Thanks again for reading.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: The Privacy Implications of Weak AI](../../../../2021/11/10/the-privacy-implications-of-weak-ai/)
+[2: Synthetic Media](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Synthetic_media)
+[3: Deepfake](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Deepfake)
+[4: Deepnude](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography#DeepNude)
+[5: Social Engineering](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security))
+[6: Voice Deepfake Scam](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessedamiani/2019/09/03/a-voice-deepfake-was-used-to-scam-a-ceo-out-of-243000/)
+[7: CAPTCHA](https://wikiless.org/wiki/CAPTCHA)
+[8: Turing Test](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Turing_test)
+[9: Her (Film)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Her_(film))
+[10: Ex Machina](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_(film))
+[11: Ready Player One](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ready_Player_One_(film))
diff --git a/content/post/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio.md b/content/post/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2436a99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio.md
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+title: "Inception - Rejecting Discord, Draw.io, and Visual Studio"
+date: 2020-03-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Background
+In the spring of 2018, I took software engineering at SIUe[1]. Software engineering is a junior level CS course. In my view, it serves as preparation for the more demanding two semester development effort that is the senior project. I'll call the professor, "Professor X" to preserve anonymity.
+
+# Story
+## Project I
+The first project was for the purposes of getting everyone accustomed to using Git and Redmine and working in a team as well as doing some documentation. We were put in groups of three to four and given the task of writing a fairly simple program with a GUI and some basic functionality in C#. I remember being very anxious upon forming a group because I knew my group members would likely want to use Slack[2] or Discord[3] or some other popular proprietary walled garden messaging platform. Luckily for the first project of the class, my three group members were not thrilled, but were willing to undergo the inconvenience of downloading and using Riot.im[4] / Matrix[5].
+
+### Communication
+It was awkward and uncomfortable to be the only person in the group refusing to use Discord when everyone else very quickly came to a consensus on it. Peer pressure is a real thing. But after explaining my reasons, I was able to win over the group after a few days and get everyone using Riot. I even got everyone to exchange their device keys over email so we could all have an encrypted group chat. The peace of mind of having an encrypted room and using free software instead of having our group messages data mined and sold as would have been the case with Discord cannot be overvalued for me. I didn't really win the group over by convincing them with the benefits of encryption and free software. I think they just wanted to get the project moving along and saw the easiest way forward was to adapt to me. So I got past the first hurdle.
+
+### IDE
+I don't recall the specifics of the program, but it probably had some buttons and text boxes and would have been similar in difficulty to a graphical desktop calculator application. Our group did the required UML diagrams. The only thing left was to code the classes we diagrammed. This is where the trouble started for me. Professor X's project specification I believe was handed down from Professor Y who died unexpectedly. So Professor X was standing in for Professor Y teaching with his slides. Unfortunately I've heard Professor Y had a love for Windows and his project specification required everyone to use Visual Studio.
+
+At this point I got worried because Visual Studio is proprietary software, and it was a battle with my conscience to use it or not. I definitely wasn't willing to install it on my personal machine. So instead, I found Monodevelop and was able to use it to complete project I. We still had to use Winforms for the GUI part which was awful, but at least I was able to avoid Visual Studio. The members of my group installed and used Visual Studio on their personal computers. So far, I had been able to completely avoid proprietary software.
+
+## Project II
+Project II was a similar story to project I except that I was in a group of three instead of four. This time, we were assigned a project called Cougar Delivery. The specifications outlined a delivery service we had to make software for. The delivery service software had to perform tasks such as tracking shipments, generating performance reports and cost of business charts, allow clients to order shipments and generate routes for shipping packages for the shipping business. It had many more requirements, so I won't list them all. But the idea was a single graphical application that enabled all the business operations related to running a delivery business. Realistically, this would have been divided up into several applications that handled general aspects of business such as finances, tracking, client and employee login systems and permissions, and more. But the point of the class was documentation and design rather than implementation.
+
+### Communication
+Again, it was awkward asking everyone to use Riot when they had never heard of it. I had a hard time finding a soft way to propose using it when I wasn't willing to accept a proprietary alternative. But my two group members were willing to use it. I again was able to convince them to exchange device keys in person for an encrypted room. So far, all was well.
+
+### Documentation
+And so we began our documentation. This time, I was not our project lead. Another team member had more time to work on the project, so he took the initiative. He was very diligent and before we had even started writing code, we ended up with an estimate of close to eighty classes total. We had polished UML diagrams for all those classes including package diagrams and UML class diagrams and a three tier architecture established before a single line of code was written. I was very satisfied with that. For my diagrams, I used Dia[6] and my teammates used draw.io[7]. Dia was difficult and annoying to use as far as alignment goes. It might have been due to my inexperience never having used it before, but I used it anyway for freedom. Draw.io is not free software. It uses proprietary Javascript and requires a software license to purchase the app. Nevertheless my teammates were able to at least export their diagrams in png format so I could see them using free software. Our project lead claimed to have used Dia before and said it was too inconvenient usage-wise.
+
+The deliverables for the project were scheduled in such a way that we had to do all the documentation before starting the project, and continually revise documentation as the project went along. Our documentation was so effective that I trust we could've handed it to any other group in the class, and they would have been able to implement our entire design. Some of the documents were done using Google Docs regrettably. I strongly suggested using Sandstorm[8] instead since it is free software and doesn't require proprietary Javascript in the browser. That did not end up happening since I had other classes to worry about and we were crunched for time. If I could retake the class, I would have created a separate shared repo for documentation and used a word processor for editing instead. Our team lead did not see this as viable since he felt we needed to be able to see everyone else's changes in real time. There was a lot of talk about using Sandstorm, but I was never able to make it happen.
+
+Another possible free software self-hosting alternative to Google Docs would have been an Etherpad[9] instance, but public Etherpad instances did not have the plugins necessary for nicely formatting documents unless I self-hosted and installed them myself. And I guess I didn't have the time to set up an instance or something. But I did put a few hours of work in trying to get it working. It was very discouraging to be working so hard on something very tangientially related to our actual project. I wasn't able to move the group toward using Etherpad either. I ultimately ran out of time trying to make it work. I was the one pushing to use something besides Google Docs mainly due to its proprietary Javascript.
+
+After I had been defeated unable to move the group to something besides Google Docs, I gave in to using Google Docs which I was able to use anonymously without an account. I just used the shared link. But I still had to run the proprietary Javascript in the browser which I now regret giving in to. This failure was very discouraging and harmed my motivation for doing the project. I discussed this extensively with the project lead but we weren't able to bypass the issue. After this failure, I didn't know the worse was still yet to come.
+
+### Testing Framework
+We had to use a testing framework for the current project iteration to test our code. Of course our professor's hand-me-down specification and slides insisted that we use MSTest. I did some background research because it sounded proprietary. I found it was available for MonoDevelop, but when I went to install it, it asked me to read and sign a license agreement first. I believe it was proprietary based on the terms it was asking me to agree to when I tried to install it through MonoDevelop. I clicked decline. Instead of installing it, I dug in my heels and went to the professor after class. Regrettably, I did not mention the idea of free software very explicitly. Instead I talked about how I wasn't willing to agree to the terms so MonoDevelop could run the tests. He chuckled when I mentioned I wasn't using Visual Studio as the project requirements laid out, preparing for a potentially awkward conversation. And then when I mentioned not wanting to use the testing framework, he seemed perplexed. He told me I could write the unit tests and have a team member who has Visual Studio run them, thus bypassing agreeing to the license. This didn't satisfy me though, because it just passes the buck off to someone else. I definitely wasn't going to rely on my team members to agree to something I myself wouldn't. I let him know that I felt his idea didn't really solve the issue for me. I asked Professor X if I could use the NUnit testing framework instead, a libre library. He told me to ask the grader.
+
+So I emailed the grader explaining in detail my ethical concerns about MSTest. He got back to me promptly admitting that he did not know about the ethical issue and would be willing to accomodate me given that NUnit could work in Visual Studio. It could, so I wrote my tests for our code using NUnit. I even rewrote some of our tests that had been written in MSTest into NUnit to increase the freedom of our project which wasn't too difficult. I had successfully dodged what could have became a freedom issue. I also discussed this with our group. They continued writing the unit tests using MSTest.
+
+### IDE
+I thought I would be able to use MonoDevelop as before without any issues. I had solved the issue of the testing framework. What more issues could arise? The database. The instructions for the database in the database tier of our three tier architecture were written to explain how to use the SQL database in Visual Studio. It used libraries that only worked in Visual Studio if I recall correctly. This caused an inner conflict for me. I had never failed a class before, but I knew the professor wasn't going to rewrite the specifications in the middle of the project and it would be too much for the grader to try to get something else working and too much for me to research another solution. I talked about this issue ad nauseum to our group lead, who was sympathetic but tried to still convince me to just write the database anyway. I wasn't able to get him to really make sense of the freedom issue despite sending supporting links from the FSF website to explain my position. After heated debate, we eventually came to the compromise that I would only work on the part of our program that did not include the database. I would work on the other two tiers; the controller and graphical interface. I now regard this compromise as a mistake.
+
+This still did not resolve the issue because I was unable to compile our program without having the SQL database that only worked in Visual Studio. I painfully forced myself to use Visual Studio in the university computer lab to write the project. This occurred with our team late at night all of us working furiously before the due date to get as much coded as possible and submitted. We were doing rapid trio programming because none of us had time until the last moment to work on the project. I was glad to have finished the project, but still giving in to using proprietary software did not sit well with me. I was ashamed of having given in but also understood my teammates would have had to give me a bad performance report if I outright refused to work on the project due to the database tier. So practically the choice was between failing and tacitly condoning Visual Studio by using it. I made the mistake of choosing to use Visual Studio to pass instead of putting my foot down and refusing and going to the professor again about the ethical issue. I think I didn't go to the professor again because I didn't want to inconvenience him too much to avoid another awkward conversation. I ought to have went immediately to the professor again to discuss the freedom issue. I passed the class with a good mark and accomplished the project, but still felt gross about giving in to proprietary software.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.siue.edu](https://www.siue.edu)
+[2: https://slack.com](https://slack.com)
+[3: https://discordapp.com/](https://discordapp.com/)
+[4: https://riot.im/](https://riot.im/)
+[5: https://matrix.org/](https://matrix.org/)
+[6: http://dia-installer.de/](http://dia-installer.de/)
+[7: https://app.diagrams.net/](https://app.diagrams.net/)
+[8: https://sandstorm.io/](https://sandstorm.io/)
+[9: https://etherpad.org/](https://etherpad.org/)
diff --git a/content/post/integrated-activism.md b/content/post/integrated-activism.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..56306d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/integrated-activism.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+title: "Integrated Activism"
+date: 2021-06-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Tunnel Vision
+The very first thing I want to talk about to kick off this post is something in activism that I call "tunnel vision". It happens when an activist judges the morality of every social situation through the lens of their preferred social causes only, neglecting other relevant social concerns. 
+
+## Cryptocurrency
+To break that down, let's think about cryptocurrency. Proponents of proof-of-work based blockchain cryptocurrencies often highlight the benefits. For instance, the blockchain's decentralized nature, resilience against various attack vectors, privacy benefits, freedom benefits, etc. But they either fail to mention or brush off its environmental impact and tax implications.
+
+In Richard Stallman's appearance on Monero Talk[1], he brings up both the issue that proof-of-work blockchains cause massive energy consumption and they make it harder to tax the wealthy. These are both issues that I don't see taken seriously enough. I care very much about the environment and I still hesitate to include donation addresses for energy-intensive cryptocurrencies on my about page[2] for that very reason. I don't want to encourage a network that wastes enormous levels of energy when there are less energy-intensive alternatives. I've never seen anyone else even make that point before. Perhaps that's because it's more convenient to ignore the energy impact when there's money to be made.
+
+And that is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about. It's focusing on one important social issue to the detriment of others. Even if you're accepting donations through energy-intensive cryptocurrency for a good cause, the environmental impact shouldn't be ignored. At the very least, it warrants a discussion.
+
+## Darknets
+What's interesting to me is how different communities react to social issues. Some communities seem to have less tunnel vision than others. In cryptocurrencies like Monero, there is a lot of not seeing the bigger picture and the full implications of what is being created. There is a lot of tunnel vision. In darknets, I see the opposite. Everyone knows darknets enable immoral behavior that people otherwise couldn't get away with as easily.
+
+The difference between darknet communities and cryptocurrency communities as I see it is the darknet communities better acknowledge the downsides of their technologies. Several major darknets acknowledge the downsides directly on their websites[3][4]. Their collective response is basically "Yes this technology enables bad things, but it also enables good things, and the good things outweigh the bad things". Official websites for cryptocurrencies aren't as forthcoming about the downsides of their technology. This is bad because we need an honest conversation about the good and the bad of technologies. Simply viewing everything through the lens of "freedom" or "privacy" is harmful, in the long run. There are other social issues to consider.
+
+# Dealing With Conflicting Social Causes
+There's a lot going wrong in the world and, as an activist, there are infinite social issues worth fighting for. Some of them conflict with each other. So the question becomes how to deal with conflicting social issues. Because the alternative is just ignoring them. It's just having tunnel vision.
+
+## Clever Solutions
+Sometimes there are clever ways to get around conflicts of interest between two social issues. For instance, using proof-of-stake consensus for blockchains instead of proof-of-work mitigates the energy consumption problem of cryptocurrencies. It preserves the good qualities of cryptocurrency while mitigating the purely bad qualities. 
+
+## Hard Conflicts
+### Darknets - Good and Bad Content
+Other times, there just isn't a clever way around a conflict. For example it's very difficult to create darknets that only permit "good" content. Who is the authority on what content is good and not good? One must either allow all content, or come up with a complex "scoring/rating" system for content on the network. But then the scoring system may be abused to censor "good" content. There's no simple solution.
+
+### Prisons - Privacy and Safety
+Prisons are another example. A privacy advocate like myself doesn't want prisoners under 24/7 video surveillance. However, just removing the cameras causes safety problems for prisoners. I wouldn't just advocate removing the cameras without making any other changes, because that could be dangerous. I'd rather see guards employed to watch the prisoners, but that creates budget issues for the prison since it has to employ more guards. Also, guards may be corrupted to turn a blind eye whereas camera footage is a different story. What's the solution?
+
+### Free Software and Organizing
+A final example I'll give is free software and getting organized. I've attended climate protests in the past. Unfortunately the communication channels and websites that organize these protests sometimes make it difficult or even impossible to access them using free software. Given that I don't have unlimited time to figure out workarounds, my practical choices are either give up software freedom or miss out on some climate demonstrations. Which should I choose?
+
+## A Reasonable Compromise
+If you are an activist who doesn't have "tunnel vision", who is capable of considering several social issues at once, you are going to run into situations where two or more social issues are in a "hard conflict" and there's no easy way to respect them all. What you have to do in situations like those is to figure out your priorities. This isn't easy because there are often complex interactions between any two social issues. But that doesn't mean it's the wrong approach.
+
+If there is a climate protest I want to attend, but I can only retrieve the location for the protest by running proprietary Javascript on the webpage, I'm probably going to run the proprietary Javascript sacrificing my computing freedom. Perhaps this is a bad example because I could probably just email the organizers, but my point still stands. Attending climate protests is more important than leading a life of perfect free software purity. Free software does me no good if the planet is uninhabitable.
+
+As an activist, you must sort out your priorities. There aren't always ways to respect every social issue you fight for. Compromises have to be made. These kinds of compromises are made in politics all the time. It's a matter of strategy. Some social issues are more pressing than others.
+
+This is not saying you have to be an activist for every social issue in the world. That would be absurd. No one has the time or energy for that. What I'm saying is when you're fighting for a cause, you shouldn't ignore the effects your actions have on other social concerns. If you want to have a positive impact, you have to integrate your activism with the whole space of related concerns, moderated by your priorities. That is the meaning of integrated activism.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Monero Talk Featuring Richard Stallman](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=h-t4lmHcXqw)
+[2: About Page](../../../../about/)
+[3: Tor's Response to Abuse](https://support.torproject.org/abuse/)
+[4: Freenet's Response to Abuse](https://freenetproject.org/pages/help.html#what-about-child-porn-offensive-content-or-terrorism)
diff --git a/content/post/ipv6-adoption.md b/content/post/ipv6-adoption.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..85125cb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/ipv6-adoption.md
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+title: "IPv6 Adoption"
+date: 2020-12-25T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+I try to make my posts accessible in the sense that I don't want to assume the reader has prior knowledge about a topic. So I'm going to explain a bit about IPv4 and IPv6 before I talk about how you can help with IPv6 adoption. If you're already familiar with IPv4 and IPv6 feel free to skip.
+
+# IPv4
+IPv4[1] stands for Internet Protocol Version 4. I'm not going to get into the OSI model and computer networking layers. It's enough to know that IPv4 is a protocol that defines how data is sent over the internet. IPv4 has a logical addressing system which allows packets to be routed from one computer to another. It's how your computer and the computer hosting this website can talk to each another. IPv4 specifies 32 bits per address which is about 4.3 billion logical addresses.
+
+This was fine when the internet was small, but now the internet is massive and has more than 4.3 billion devices connected to it. This creates a problem since there are more devices than ways to address them. There are nuances like special addresses and addresses that are reserved but remain unused, but those aren't that important for our purposes. The problem is how can we route traffic across the internet since we've run out of internet addresses to hand out?
+
+## NAT
+Welcome to NAT[2]. NAT stands for Network Address Translation. The main reason NAT exists is to solve the IPv4 problem of not having enough logical addresses for every device. NAT translates private IP addresses on an internal network to public IP addresses that can talk to other computers on the real internet. This allows several connected devices to share the same IP address, conserving logical addresses so IPv4 can still work. I won't go into detail on how this happens because it's not relevant, but it does have overhead. NAT is basically an ugly hack for the problem of not enough IPv4 addresses for each internet connected device.
+
+# IPv6
+IPv6[3] supercedes IPv4 using 128-bit addresses (340 undecillion IP addresses). It's the obvious elegant solution to the problem of not having enough internet addresses: use a protocol that has more addresses. It doesn't require NAT because each connected device can have its own IP address on the real public internet. Since the IPv6 address space is so huge, it's highly unlikely that IPv6 will ever be superceded for lack of internet addresses.
+
+It also has other practical advantages to IPv4. As the name implies, it's a newer protocol drafted in 1998 whereas IPv4 was first deployed in 1982. IPv6 packets are easier for routers to process since the IPv6 packet is simpler than the IPv4 packet. This is consistent with the original vision of the internet where most processing happens at endpoints, not routers. IPsec[4] is mandatory whereas in IPv4 it was retrofitted. Network operators don't have to do port forwarding on the router or make firewall changes. Multicast addressing is simpler. IPv6 limits the size of routing tables[5]. Mobile IPv6[6] is as efficient as regular IPv6. I could go on but the point is it's much better than IPv4 in every way.
+
+# IPv6 Adoption
+ISPs and tech giants are slowly increasing IPv6 support. Ideally, everyone would use IPv6 and IPv4 would cease to exist. IPv4 has no practical advantages. It was superceded by IPv6 over 2 decades ago and the switch still hasn't completely happened yet. What's the problem? If IPv6 is better then why is adoption taking so long? The barrier to IPv6 adoption isn't so much at endpoints. By 2011 all major operating systems had support for IPv6. The problem is there often isn't a strong financial incentive for IPv6 adoption.
+
+If you're an average internet user, you don't even know what IPv4 or IPv6 is. Unless your ISP enabled IPv6 for you then you probably don't have it. You can access all the internet resources you want without it anyway. Even if your ISP enabled it and your modem/router supports it, still many end-user devices and applications don't work well with it. If they do support IPv6, they also support IPv4 because IPv6 always runs alongside IPv4 with dual stack[7]. If you host any internet resource then all your users support IPv4. So why bother with IPv6?
+
+## Chicken and Egg Problem
+IPv6 is still a clearly technically superior protocol. But IPv6 adoption is a classic chicken and egg[8] problem. End-users don't adopt IPv6 because industry hasn't, so there's no practical advantages to it. Industry doesn't adopt IPv6 because end-users haven't, so there's no money in it. The problem with IPv6 adoption is creating the social inertia without immediate economic benefit. The easiest way to do that for most people is to call up your ISP and ask them to help you enable IPv6 for your home network. If you find that some internet services don't work with IPv6 then you can complain to those services about their IPv6 support. This creates social pressure from the end-user side to help speed up IPv6 adoption.
+
+Whether you're a network administrator, provider of internet services or software developer, I encourage you to support IPv6 whether or not it will have any immediate benefit. You'll be helping the internet take its next step. You are the other side of the coin when it comes to IPv6 adoption. It's not a major selling point, but some users will appreciate it. We have to get over this chicken and egg problem of adoption. We can do that by going through a little extra trouble to help move the internet along. It has been 8 years since world IPv6 launch day and still the numbers for IPv6 adoption could be a lot higher than they are. Let's make it happen.
+
+For updates on IPv6 adoption, check out the World IPv6 Launch[9] site's blog.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/IPv4](https://wikiless.org/wiki/IPv4)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Network_address_translation](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Network_address_translation)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/IPv6](https://wikiless.org/wiki/IPv6)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/IPsec](https://wikiless.org/wiki/IPsec)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Routing_table](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Routing_table)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Mobile_IPv6](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Mobile_IPv6)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Dual_Stack](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Dual_Stack)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg)
+[9: https://www.worldipv6launch.org/blog/](https://www.worldipv6launch.org/blog/)
diff --git a/content/post/is-beastiality-immoral.md b/content/post/is-beastiality-immoral.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d1c4e1c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/is-beastiality-immoral.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+title: "Is Beastiality Immoral?"
+date: 2022-04-18T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+I already wrote an entry defending incest[1], so I figured why not write about another sex taboo? This time, I'll be exploring the ethics of beastiality.
+
+# Beastiality
+Is it wrong to have sex with non-human animals?
+
+So to answer this question, I'll start by stating my values. I ultimately value something like increasing well-being and decreasing suffering. So, considering my values, the above inquiry boils down to two questions:
+
+Question #1: How does beastiality affect non-human animals?
+Question #2: How does beastiality affect humans?
+
+I'll start with question 1.
+
+## How Does Beastiality Affect Non-Human Animals?
+There is a concern that non-human animals are incapable of consent. But clearly, some non-human animals such as dogs are capable of consent.
+
+Think of the consent standards we hold humans to. Do we expect that every time two people have sex, they both verbally consent to everything that happens? No. There are many ways a person can communicate consent besides a direct, verbal yes or no. Non-human animals are no different.
+
+Let's take the most obvious example. A non-human animal initiates sex with a human. I've seen dogs hump people before unprompted. How can one say dogs can't consent when they can initiate? In this example, the dog isn't being forced. It's not being coerced or bullied. It's just a horny dog doing what horny dogs do. I think it's safe to say the dog isn't being harmed, and probably is enjoying itself.
+
+What about less clear cut cases? What if the human initiates, but the non-human animal doesn't resist and isn't being intimidated or coerced? There is a power differential, but that doesn't make consent impossible, just tricky. The important question is "Is the non-human animal being harmed, physically or psychologically?". If not, then I'm all out of objections.
+
+## How Does Beastiality Affect Humans?
+What about humans? Does sex with non-human animals negatively effect us? Let's come back to the question of consent again.
+
+Can a non-human animal rape a human? Actually yes, it is possible and it does happen. There have been cases of orangutans raping humans. Obviously, it's very bad for the human, but they're wild animals following their instincts. We cannot teach wild animals not to rape and cases like this are very rare. In almost every case, if a human is having sex with a non-human animal, it's because they want to do it. As long as the person is educated about the risks involved and has freely decided to take those risks, I don't see why it would be ethically wrong.
+
+## Diseases
+Now there is one big issue I glossed over, on both the non-human animal side and the human side, and that's diseases.
+
+Animals can transfer dangerous diseases to humans such as rabies[2]. Humans can also transfer diseases to animals. I want to make it clear that I don't have any specialized knowledge on this topic. I'm not a veterinarian or a doctor, so I could be completely wrong on this, but diseases are my main concern with beastiality.
+
+Seeing the havoc Covid-19 continues to cause, I think we have good reasons to be worried about new infectious diseases hopping across species. My lack knowledge in the area of diseases and the fact that it's not well-researched procludes me from forming a definite opinion. I don't know how severe the risk of disease transmission is, so I won't make a final moral judgement about beastiality.
+
+# The Least Convenient World
+Ending on that note isn't very satisfying, so let's explore the least convenient possible world[3].
+
+If I'm trying to show beastiality is morally wrong, the least convenient possible world for me is one where the non-human animal nonverbally consents and there's no risk of disease transmission or physical damage to the human or non-human animal due to sex organ size differences.
+
+If it can be shown that the real world is close to the anti-zoophile's least convenient world, for instance if dangerous new diseases are extremely unlikely to be transmitted cross-species with the animal species that humans tend to have sex with, then I would see no problem with beastiality and I would agree with legalizing it for those specific animals.
+
+For animals where there's a high chance of transmitting dangerous new diseases cross-species, regardless of whether it's human-to-animal or animal-to-human, then beastiality would go against my values by decreasing well-being and I might support criminalizing beastiality with risky animals.
+
+# Stigma Against Beastiality
+That said, there seems to exist a certain stigma in discussions about beastiality and I don't think this entry would be complete without mentioning it. People feel that it's disgusting. But again, I have to restate that no matter how disgusting one finds something, that's not an argument against others having the freedom to do it.
+
+There are other legitimate concerns about beastiality that I've already mentioned, such as consent and disease. But grossness just is not relevant to the ethics of it. If you find beastiality gross, then don't have sex with animals. But don't use your disgust as a justification for taking away others' freedoms. Find a better justification.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: There Is Nothing Wrong With Incest](../../../../2021/12/16/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-incest/)
+[2: Rabies](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Rabies)
+[3: The Least Convenient Possible World](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/neQ7eXuaXpiYw7SBy/the-least-convenient-possible-world)
diff --git a/content/post/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md b/content/post/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9c2cfb6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+title: "It's Not Necessarily Irrational to Believe Things You Can't Justify to Others"
+date: 2022-04-12T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+There's a certain mistake seasoned debaters often make when interacting with lay people and the mistake is that just because the unprepared lay person cannot presently argue a point, the seasoned debater concludes they hold that belief without justification. I'll explain why this conclusion isn't necessarily correct.
+
+Remember the "Change My Mind" guy, Steven Crowder[1]? If you're not familiar with him, he's an American-Canadian conservative political commentator and the subject of a popular meme format. He used to set up a table on college campuses to debate college students. I don't know if he still does it. I don't follow him. Anyways he goes into these debates where he picks the topic, one which he's knowledgeable about and has lots of points in his favor already in working memory, and he goes up against unprepared college students.
+
+I don't consider what Steven does unfair in the slightest, because the college students voluntarily go and debate him, so it's up to them to be ready for the heat. It's not like he screens students before he debates them to make himself look good. But I fear that some people may get the impression that he's correct just because he can look smart in front of unprepared college students.
+
+# Hacker News Comment
+There's this idea that people who can't defend a belief to others are always unjustified in it, but this conclusion is wrong. What's really happening might be better explained by Hacker News commenter TameAntelope[2]:
+
+> "I think this is why it's hard sometimes to argue in support of something you believe, even if you're right.
+> 
+> At one point, all of the relevant facts and figures were loaded into your working memory, and with that information you arrived at a conclusion. Your brain, however, no longer needs those facts and figures; you've gotten what you needed from them, and they can be kicked out of working memory. What you store there is the conclusion. If it comes up again, you've got your decision, but not all of the information about how you arrived there.
+> 
+> So when your decision is challenged, you are not well equipped to defend it, because you no longer retain why you arrived at that decision, just the conclusion itself.
+> 
+> It's immensely easier to trust that you arrived at the right conclusion and the person who is in disagreement is missing something, than it is to reload all of the facts and figures back into your brain and re-determine your conclusion all over again. Instead, you can dig in, and resort to shortcuts and logical tricks (that you can pull out without needing to study) to defend what you've previously concluded (possibly correctly, but without the relevant information).
+> 
+> If this finding ends up being generally an approximation of how our brains work, it could explain a lot about what's happening to global conversations, particularly around the Internet and on social media specifically. It also suggests a possible solution; make the data quickly available. Make it as seamless as possible to re-load those facts and figures into your working memory, and make it as unpleasant as possible to rely on shortcuts and logical tricks when arguing a point."
+> 
+> - TameAntelope
+
+TameAntelope hits the nail on the head here. Believing something you cannot justify to others isn't necessarily irrational. If you recall a time when you did have all the relevant facts and figures in your head, and computed the conclusion, then it does make sense to stick to that conclusion even after you've long forgotten the justification for it.
+
+Do I think this applies equally to everyone? Of course not. Lots of people, probably even a majority, just believe whatever their parents or friends believe. They're not critical thinkers and, most likely, they were never at any point justified in most of what they believe.
+
+# Human Memory
+If two equally skilled debaters go up against each other on a public platform, they shouldn't be saying "Well, I remember a time when I justified X to myself in the past, so I'm going to keep believing it despite your counterpoints". They should prepare for the debate ahead of time, bringing their best cards to the table. But it's different when a seasoned debater like Steven Crowder challenges random college students, or an experienced public debater like Destiny[3] challenges random viewers of his stream. That's not an equal debate and it should be acceptable for the unprepared party to cut the debate short with "I don't remember enough about X to refute you right now. Let me see if I can find what originally convinced me of X and I'll get back to you".
+
+If I smoke a ton of weed, assuming I don't forget what I believe entirely, I'll have a hard time justifying certain beliefs because I won't remember the justifications, only the beliefs. I'll remember that sober me could've justified my beliefs, or that sober me could've remembered a time when I justified them, and that'll be good enough justification for intoxicated me. Obviously that doesn't convince anybody else of what I believe, unless they just have lots of faith in me.
+
+You still have to be careful when reasoning this way, but I don't think it's an "incorrect" way to reason. Philosophically, I'm a skeptic. I believe that one ought to have evidence for their beliefs. "My past self justified belief X and since my past self had decent reasoning capabilities, I trust the result" counts as a form of evidence. The catch is, it only justifies your beliefs to you.
+
+# Ineffable Knowledge
+## Suspiciousness
+And memory isn't even the only reason one might reason indirectly in this way. Have you ever met someone and something just felt off with them? I've met people like this. I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was about them, but nevertheless the alarms were sounding. The "specialized hardware unit" in my brain was conveying to me a result, without explaining how it got that result, because how it got there wasn't important information. The important information was "stay away from this person, they might be dangerous".
+
+I'm not appealing to anything paranormal or supernatural like souls, karma, auras, or ghosts. I don't believe in those things. I'm just saying different parts of the brain are specialized for different tasks. It's the difference between the interface and the implementation. The computer motherboard doesn't have to care about the implementation of the hard drive. It only cares that the interface is compatible.
+
+Similarly, I don't need to know how the social circuitry in my brain arrived at its conclusion. I'm not going to know all the microexpressions I observed that started concerning me. I just need to trust that part of my brain that warns me of dangerous people to reliably do its job.
+
+## Relationships
+Maybe you have a relationship that just "feels right". Again, I think you have to be very cautious with making conclusions like this. Humans are heavily biased creatures. Sometimes our specialized brain functions become unreliable. They're also subject to manipulation. People in abusive relationships say things like "It just feels right. Others people will never understand what we have" and obviously their intuitions are wrong.
+
+But sometimes the intuition of a good relationship is right. Intuitions tend to improve over time as you get to know yourself better. It's perfectly acceptable to love someone and not have a reason why. That might just be your specialized brain circuitry working as it should, giving you a result without all the reasons why.
+
+# Conclusion
+There's a tendency among hyperintellectual people (Spock types) to minimize, denigrade, and avoid indirect reasoning. I know because I am a hyperintellectual person myself. But we can't afford to throw indirect reasoning out the window wholesale. Despite its flaws, it surely has its place and we can't function without it.
+
+We shouldn't assume people who can't verbalize their justification for a belief lack justification for that belief. I think this is an important thing to keep in mind when you engage with someone who is less prepared than you.
+
+I immediately thought of this Destiny debate after reading TameAntelope's comment on Hacker News. The debater against Destiny kept insisting upon an assertion, although they couldn't recall any specific information to back it up. Destiny encouraged this person to renounce their position, but of course it failed because their belief was being reinforced not by facts, but by the memory of supposed facts which they no longer recalled.
+
+Instead of Destiny realizing this was what was happening, he got extremely frustrated and continued to argue with this person for at least half an hour to an hour if I remember correctly when he should've just said "Go get me the facts you think you remember and then come back". To his credit, I think he might've said something like this towards the end.
+
+I think recognizing these indirect yet still valid ways people reason can help us all have better conversations and also help us not be assholes.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Steven Crowder](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Steven_Crowder)
+[2: Hacker News Comment](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31004980)
+[3: Destiny](https://yewtu.be/channel/UC554eY5jNUfDq3yDOJYirOQ)
diff --git a/content/post/journal-update-015.md b/content/post/journal-update-015.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a215639
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/journal-update-015.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: "Journal Update 015"
+date: 2021-09-10T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+It sometimes happens that after I write a post, I think of ways it could've been better. Rarely it happens that I completely change my opinion on something and my past writing no longer reflects what I now believe. But it does happen.
+
+So should I rewrite every entry that isn't perfect according to my own standards? This journal isn't a podcast. I could do that, if I wanted to. But I don't want to do that. I don't want to be doing loads of work constantly going back to correct what I've written. It would destroy my motivation to write this journal and I believe this journal is a positive contribution to society.
+
+I don't think my readers want me to do that either. When readers share my entries, they expect the entry they shared to be the same entry they read. Unless it's something trivial like a broken link, subjecting my entries to constant revision seems to be in nobody's best interest. Even adding correctional notes inside entries could make a mess of my writing.
+
+None of this excuses me from self-correction though. I do want to point out what I got wrong in my previous entries. This journal demands an alternative solution to self-correction.
+
+# What's New
+## Journal Corrections
+As a compromise between journal organization/entry stability and correctness of the information/opinions I publish, I've decided to create a new page listing the corrections by entry. This page will serve to correct bad or biased information I've published. In order to avoid corrections of corrections, the journal corrections page itself will be subject to change at any time. If I feel the mistake is severe enough, I may decide to add a link at the top of the original entry linking to its corrections.
+
+## Journal Updates
+Finally, you may be wondering why I keep calling this a "journal" and why the title of this "entry" is "Journal Update" instead of "Site Update" as usual. "site" is short for "website", which is associated with the world wide web. And "blog" is short for "weblog" (web log) which also isn't platform agnostic language. Given my writing is available as an onion (Tor), an eepsite (I2P), a freesite (Freenet), a zite (ZeroNet), and a capsule (Gemini), calling it any one of those things is misleading. So I've decided to use the word "journal" from now on to refer to what I do here. It's a descriptive, platform agnostic word. The header and footer text has also been updated.
+
+# Future Plans
+* Support multithreading in journal generation scripts. This should make generation go faster. This is even more important now that feeds are generated independently of pages. See site update 12 for details[1].
+* Support caching in journal generation scripts. This should make generation go much faster.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Site Update 012](../../../../2021/06/10/site-update-012/)
diff --git a/content/post/journal-update-016.md b/content/post/journal-update-016.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..133bdde
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/journal-update-016.md
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+title: "Journal Update 016"
+date: 2021-10-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+* Freenet and Zeronet support have been removed. I don't think anyone is using those platforms to read this journal, so I deem them not worth the maintenance.
+* Minor improvements/fixes for capsule/site generation.
+* Hosting of site/capsule/services consolidated to 1 machine to lower costs. Previously there were 2 separate machines used for hosting. Unfortunately this means loss of IPv6 support.
+* Update PGP key. If my subkeys expire or I publish the revocation certificate, you can assume I've been compromised.
+
+# Future Plans
+* Write journal corrections. See journal update 15 for details[1].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Journal Update 015](../../../../2021/09/10/journal-update-015/)
diff --git a/content/post/journal-update-017.md b/content/post/journal-update-017.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f74943
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/journal-update-017.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "Journal Update 017"
+date: 2021-12-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+* IPv6 support is back! I don't plan on removing it again. This site needs to be present on the modern internet.
+* Migrate from Gitea to Cgit[1] + Gitolite3. Gitea is much more than I need. Cgit is lightweight and it loads faster.
+* Change top-level domain from .com to .ch. Operation Not in Your Sites.[2] See the War on Sharing.[3] Nicksphere.com will redirect for about a year until it expires. So readers have a year to update their bookmarks/links.
+* New self-hosted email.[4] Posteo is great and I've no complaints about it. I still recommend Posteo to others. I just wanted more control over my email and it seemed silly not to self-host where I could. My PGP key has also been updated to reflect my new email.
+* Remove corrections page. I have no motivation to write corrections. I don't think anybody would read them anyway and it's probably best to just make new entries to self-correct.
+* Remove hosted services on the about page.[5] My new VPS doesn't have the resources for them. I still have the old VPS and domain name rented out for a year in advance. If anybody reading this needs a hosted service for a use case, just let me know. Otherwise I'll dedicate those resources elsewhere.
+* Website redesign! I changed the font to sans-serif which is much easier and more enjoyable to read than monospace. I also squashed the text to 780 pixels so less horizontal eye scanning is required. This is irrelevant to readers coming from Gemini and Atom/RSS.
+* Remove dead links. I wrote a Python script to crawl the journal and detect all the dead links.[6] Running this periodically should be sufficient to prevent link rot on Nicksphere. I may automate the process in the future.
+* Remove articles and books from the promoted page.[7] I've struggled with how to promote others' work for a while. For now I've settled on promoting more general links on the promoted page, while writing individual entries to promote more specific things.
+
+# Future Plans
+* Everything in the TODO.[8]
+
+# Final Note
+A while back I said I don't wish for my entries related to spirituality to be interpreted as truth-apt. I've complained about the difficulty in explaining spiritual concepts. But I think I've finally reached a point where I can explain myself better. So I'm retracting my previous stance. Please do interpret future entries related to spirituality as literally true.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Cgit](https://git.nicksphere.ch)
+[2: Operation In Our Sites](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites)
+[3: War on Sharing](https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html)
+[4: Email](mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch)
+[5: About Page](../../../../about/)
+[6: find_broken_links.py](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-gmi/tree/scripts/find_broken_links.py?id=71745f114a2ec7fa32a23e7dfe92506b9c778b90)
+[5: Promoted Page](../../../../promoted/)
+[8: TODO.txt](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-gmi/tree/TODO.txt?id=71745f114a2ec7fa32a23e7dfe92506b9c778b90)
diff --git a/content/post/journal-update-018.md b/content/post/journal-update-018.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a8a69b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/journal-update-018.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+title: "Journal Update 018"
+date: 2022-03-03T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+* Replaced my GPG key with Age for email encryption and Signify for signing commits. GPG is ancient, bad software.[1]
+* Stopped accepting cryptocurrency donations. Proof-of-work cryptocurrencies waste obscene amounts of energy. Existing cryptocurrencies don't scale well. Their main use is crime and speculation on crime. The market is full of scams and false promises. No one really knows how to value them. They are potentially a systemic risk to the economy. So I do not wish to be involved any more. It's not like this journal costs much to run anyways.
+* Entry summaries have been removed. I believe the title alone should be sufficient to communicate an entry's subject matter.
+* Pagination and read time have been removed to simplify the journal layout. These features may be added back later after the scripts rewrite if I decide they further journal design goals. The goal of the design of this journal is to be minimally distracting and respect reader attention.
+* Replaced Gitlab mirror with SourceHut[2]. SourceHut has many benefits over Gitlab. It doesn't assist ICE[3]. It doesn't require JavaScript unlike Gitlab. It's fast and resource efficient. It also supports Gemini, so all three journal mirrors now support both Gemini and the Web.
+* Added I2P support[4] for CGit instance.
+* Added I2P[5] and Tor support[6] on Gemini's main mirror. Readers can now browse the Nicksphere privately and without a Web Browser.
+* Replaced nicksphere-gmi's Gemini to HTML Go library with my own[7], written in C. Journal generation is now much faster.
+* Use spare server resources to run Tor Relay.[8]
+
+# Future Plans
+* Rewrite nicksphere-gmi[9]'s scripts to improve efficiency, maintainability, and code quality.
+* Document nicksphere-gmi's scripts separately.
+* Add privacy policy to journal.
+* Add 404 page to journal.
+* Offer rationales for items listed on promoted page.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Goodbye PGP](../../../../2022/01/03/goodbye-pgp)
+[2: SourceHut](https://sourcehut.org/)
+[3: Gitlab and ICE](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/30656)
+[4: CGit Over I2P](http://nick5la4gcv6tzdjk2pf55p5vi24pcxseioyko24ffd4x3uijdca.b32.i2p)
+[5: Gemini Over I2P](gemini://nick6w7lwwzwli57czw5glh3sm2qhnyzbhtq3nohbcnc7j3wqmqq.b32.i2p)
+[6: Gemini Over Tor](gemini://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion)
+[7: gemini2html](https://git.nicksphere.ch/gemini2html/)
+[8: Tor Relay](https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/B04ABF4521C773216BC94F6FC1310686A2ECA150)
+[9: nicksphere-gmi](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-gmi)
diff --git a/content/post/journal-update-019.md b/content/post/journal-update-019.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ec83c0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/journal-update-019.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Journal Update 019"
+date: 2022-03-14T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+* Mirrored this journal on archive.org. The archive.org link can be found on the about page[1]. Since I don't have immediate, direct control over this mirror, it's non-trivial for an adversary to remove the archive.org mirror even if I'm compromised.
+* Rewrote nicksphere-gmi to separate presentation from business logic. There are still efficiency improvements to be made, but the code is already much cleaner and more maintainable. It's now possible to easily make the website look very different from the capsule. This may be desirable since Gemini is more limited.
+* Added back the read time for entries. How much time an entry takes to read could be an important factor in deciding to read it or not. Also I want this journal to be respectful of the reader's time and attention.
+* Limited the atom feed to 20 entries. It does not need to contain every entry.
+* Replaced the commit-signatures repository with git-signify[2]. Git-signify is a hack which embeds Signify signatures into Git repositories. It's better to have the signature information embedded directly into the repository itself so it's more self-contained.
+
+If all you want to do is verify commits, you don't need git-signify. You can run the commands below instead. With Git and Signify installed, run:
+
+```Git commands
+git cat-file -p <commit-hash> | sed -n '/-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----/,/-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----/p' | sed '1d;$d' | sed 's/ //' > /tmp/sig
+git cat-file -p <commit-hash> | sed '/-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----/,/-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----/d' | signify -V -p <signify-public-key> -m - -x /tmp/sig
+```
+
+# Future Plans
+* Document nicksphere-gmi. Unlike previous versions, the current nicksphere-gmi repository is a proper static capsule/website generator. It therefore makes sense to document it for others.
+* Make a simpler demo capsule/website for potential nicksphere-gmi users.
+* Remove the promoted page. I think it would be best to eliminate the promoted page over time, making an entry for each item on the promoted page. I would rather explain in proper context what it is about these people/organizations/etcetra that I support instead of just listing them with no explanation.
+* Support multithreading for nicksphere-gmi.
+* Add a 404 page to this journal.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: About](https://nicksphere.ch/about/)
+[2: Git-Signify](https://git.nicksphere.ch/git-signify/)
diff --git a/content/post/language-shouldnt-be-exclusive.md b/content/post/language-shouldnt-be-exclusive.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2893b84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/language-shouldnt-be-exclusive.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Language Shouldn't Be Exclusive"
+date: 2022-03-27T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+A couple months ago, Joe Rogan[1], hugely popular internet podcaster, Ultimate Fighting Championship commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter apologized for using the word nigger on his podcast. Apparently someone made a compilation of him saying the word several times in different episodes. It got circulated, which prompted the apology.
+
+To be fair to Joe's critics, Joe did compare a neighborhood of black people to the Planet of the Apes movie he was going to see. Obviously that was a dumb thing to say, but Joe Rogan is not some staunch racist like the compilation tries to make him out to be. The fact that someone dug through years of his old podcast episodes to create a compilation of him using the word nigger, mostly in a neutral context, and the fact that others shared it around as evidence of him being racist, just highlights the dishonesty and vindictiveness of leftist cancel culture.
+
+In his apology, he went as far as to say it "wasn't his word to use". It was implied that it wasn't his word because he's white. That's where, in my opinion, his apology went too far. To say that only certain groups of people are allowed to use certain words otherwise it's offensive is to imbue words with magical properties. Nobody denies that words can hurt, but no word is inherently bad. The context is what matters.
+
+This political correctness has gone too far, especially in universities. I had professors that had no objection to using the word nigger in a neutral context, but even they were too afraid to use it. We have words that professors are too scared to even have purely academic discussions about. Instead, they use "the N-word", a term referring to the word, as if that's meaningfully different from just using the word itself.
+
+We should not have "forbidden" language that only certain groups of people are allowed to use. As long as words aren't being used as insults, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to use them. It's not that I have some secret burning desire to say racial slurs. I don't. I know some people do and those people are hateful. But language should not be exclusive for the rest of us just because a few hateful people use it as a weapon.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Joe Rogan](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan)
diff --git a/content/post/leak-all-the-data.md b/content/post/leak-all-the-data.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c2a583e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/leak-all-the-data.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "Leak All the Data"
+date: 2021-11-04T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+I know this entry is going to disqualify me from working for big tech or the government but oh well. Other things I've said on this journal have probably already disqualified me anyways. Whatever. This needs to be said.
+
+# Ransomware Groups Are Scum
+If you work for big tech or some corrupt government institution, leak their data! I'm not talking about customer data. Customers are victims and they deserve privacy like everybody else. These ransomware groups that leak customer data if they don't get their ransom, they have no morals. The only useful societal functions they fulfill are:
+
+* Teaching people that corporations can't protect their data.
+* Forcing corporations to care about cybersecurity.
+
+But don't be fooled. None of that motivates them. They only care about money just like the corporations they target. If you want to do some actual good then don't ask for ransom. Leak the data unconditionally. But not people's personal data. That's just scummy. Leak internal company emails that reveal corruption, source code for proprietary software with anti-features, and hardware keys used by vendors to prevent installing custom roms.
+
+# We Need Useful Leaks
+## Corporate Leaks
+It honestly blows my mind that with all the employees Micro$oft has they're able to keep Windows source code secret. Or any Micro$oft program for that matter. It only takes 1 person to leak it. I'd love to see Mac and iOS source code leaked so we know all the ways crApple is backdooring and spying on iBad users. The people deserve to know. It would be great if we could make leaks so commonplace that it's impractical for any moderately-sized corrupt organization to hide corruption.
+
+## Government Leaks
+If you work inside the NSA, FBI, CIA, or another government agency for any country, I encourage you to consider whether your duty to your fellow citizens requires you to follow in Snowden's footsteps. If you expose significant corruption, you'll quickly find out that the 'rights' you think you have don't mean a damn thing. Take note of what happened to heroic whistleblowers like Snowden, Assange, and Manning. The state classified them as terrorists and traitors and pursued them relentlessly. So if you're a government whistleblower, plan cautiously.
+
+# Legality Versus Morality
+Unless you're incapable of basic critical thinking, you understand what's right and what's legal are two very different things. The death penalty is wrong, but not outlawed everywhere. Shoplifting to feed a hungry child is illegal, but not immoral. Leaking classified government documents and corporate secrets can be ethical, if it serves the greater good.
+
+# Dumb Arguments Against Whistleblowing
+Some people think it's not their decision to make to release documents. They think that the only moral option is going through the proper, legal channels through which inevitably nothing changes. It never ceases to amaze me that highly skilled engineers in corporate/government environments don't apply the same critical thinking required in their discipline to the ethics of what they're doing. They can explain singletons to you but they're too oblivious to notice their code is enabling fascism. Logic and critical thinking are general-purpose tools that apply to everything. If you can spend hours a day tracing through code, you can spend a few minutes a day considering the social consequences of what you're doing because that's more important.
+
+So what's wrong with the "it's not my decision to make" argument? The same thing that's wrong with the "I was just following orders" excuse that has been debunked since the Nuremberg trials. Who is making the decision about whose decision it is to make? You are. The buck always stops at you. You can delegate thinking to some authority figure but you're still choosing your authority figures. That can't be delegated away. You see, in the end, it always falls on you to decide what's right.
+
+# Becoming a Whistleblower
+So if you're in a corrupt organization, blow the whistle. Leak that data. I encourage it. It IS your choice because it logically can't be anybody else's. Let people on the outside know what's really going on. We'll appreciate you.
diff --git a/content/post/legalize-all-drugs.md b/content/post/legalize-all-drugs.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b8bf0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/legalize-all-drugs.md
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+---
+title: "Legalize All Drugs"
+date: 2020-11-08T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# History Lesson
+A century ago, alcohol prohibition in the United States began with the 18th amendment[1] prohibiting the production, importation and sale of alcoholic beverages and ended in 1933 with the 21st amendment[2]. The goal of prohibition was to reduce alcohol consumption. While prohibition succeeded in reducing alcohol consumption somewhat, it resulted in many unintended consequences including public health problems, an increase in organized crime, and corruption of law enforcement.
+
+The war on "drugs" only played a small part of law enforcement efforts on the whole until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981. Reagan expanded the drug war with a focus on criminal penalties instead of treatment. His policies resulted in a massive increase in incarcerations of nonviolent drug users. His wife Nancy Reagan started the Just Say No[3] campaign to teach schoolchildren not to use drugs. It was about as effective at reducing drug use as abstinence-based sex education is at reducing sex. The most popular Just Say No program, DARE[4], showed zero effect on drug use according to 20 controlled studies[5]. Perhaps that's because DARE spreads lies and gives children a contorted picture of the war on drugs? In 1986, congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act changing federal supervised release[6] programs increasing focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation, prohibiting analogs of controlled substances[7] and requiring mandatory minimum sentences[8] for nonviolent drug users. The sentencing discrepency between crack and powder cocaine resulted in an uneven increase in incarceration rates for black people. Doesn't that sound familiar?
+
+In 2020, a whole century since the beginning of prohibition era, there are signs that we are finally learning what history has to teach us: The unintended consequences of drug prohibition are worse than the problem it's meant to solve. As of today, medical cannabis use is legalized in 35 states. The recreational use of cannabis is legalized in 15 states. 16 states have decriminalized cannabis use. Up to 40 states might allow some form of marijuana legalization[9] by the end of 2020. Just a few days ago Oregon became the first state to legalize magic mushrooms for medical use and decriminalize "street drugs". People found in possession of street drugs will face a ticket and a 100 dollar fine rather than a felony. They will optionally be offered treatment. Despite recent progress, the war on "drugs" is still being waged almost 50 years later and drugs are cheaper and easier to acquire than ever. And that's where we're at today.
+
+I could argue why drugs should be legalized without giving you the history lesson first, but historical context is important. It's important to realize just how much harm the war on "drugs" has already caused thus far. Millions of people's lives have been destroyed due to the effects of the war on drugs to the point that it is now a pervasive part of our culture including literature, movies and music. Drug addiction ruins people's lives, but the war on drugs has ruined more. I am arguing for legalization of all drugs. I'm going to offer arguments for legalization from several different perspectives.
+
+# Arguments in Favor of Legalization
+## Personal Autonomy
+Drugs should be legal because your own body belongs to you, not the government. If I want to chop my finger off so I only have 4 fingers, I should be able to do it. You can say it's the dumbest thing you've ever heard of, that something's wrong with me, that no one in their right mind would do such a thing, but it's my finger. I'm not by any means comparing doing drugs to cutting your own finger off. Depending on which drug you do, it can be far less dangerous or far more dangerous than cutting your own finger off. Cutting your own finger off also doesn't have any perceivable benefits whereas drugs do. That's why people do them. Making this argument makes me sound like I lean libertarian, but I don't think personal autonomy is without limits.
+
+With abortion, there is another life (or potential human life) at stake. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, there is at least a potential human life there that you have to take into account in your calculation of banning abortion versus legalizing it. With suicide, it is your own life you are taking. It belongs to you. But it might make sense for agents of the state to have the authority to prevent you from committing suicide if you are in a crisis situation. Although it is your own life and belongs to you as far as the government should be concerned, your future self might be glad someone stopped you. Much like abortion, you can make the case that there is a potential happy human life that is being ended. With explicit informed patient consent as in euthenasia, that argument is much harder to make especially when someone is in great pain, terminally ill, and there is no prospect of future happiness. Anyway, the point is that personal autonomy isn't an absolute. However, in general, you should be able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.
+
+You might object that while drug use may not infringe upon others' rights, it may affect them negatively even if you use drugs responsibly. So can watching too much TV, social media, and a million other things we don't criminalize. While watching too much TV is bad for you, to criminalize watching too much TV would be tyrannical because it means the government gains the right to restrict your viewing. My right to extend my fist ends at your face. Likewise, the right to do drugs, or as I'll call it, the right to access alternative states of body and mind, means the government isn't allowed to close you off from having certain types of experiences. If those states of mind produced by drugs are inconvenient for some government agenda like war, then that's too bad. There is no "right for the government to restrict states of consciousness aversive to conflict".
+
+Obviously, children should still be prohibited from doing drugs. Their brains aren't fully developed yet and we have to have some legal cutoff point after which we assume people are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to decide what they want to do with themselves. I'm not sure what that cutoff point is, but we already use that reasoning for many laws. You have to be 17-18 for an unrestricted driving permit. You have to be 18 to get a tattoo (in most states), marry (except Nebraska) or vote. You have to be 21 to legally buy alcohol, marijuana, or tobacco products. You have to be 25 years old to be a representative in the House of Representatives, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president. You gain more privileges only as you get older, and for good reason. The easiest, least costly way for the government to determine maturity is just to use age as a proxy. You can argue all day about what the legal age should be for drugs. But, once that age is met, you should be able to legally do the drugs you want as a matter of personal autonomy.
+
+## Eliminating Drug Cartels
+Besides personal autonomy, there are also strong social reasons for legalizing all drugs. Legalizing all drugs would put an end to the drug cartels and their associated violence by taking away their profits and undermining their whole reason for existing. Drug cartels exist for a specific purpose. Any time you have a commercial enterprise, you need some way to enforce rules regarding the manufacture, distribution and sale of the product. For example, if your illegal product is stolen, you can't exactly report it to law enforcement. There is no legal recourse you can take. So you resort to violence, or at least make a credible threat of violence to deter future stealing. If you don't threaten violence, then you have no way to deter stealing and other undesirable behavior. Other competing cartels will use violence to further their operations and you will be "outcompeted".
+
+Not only would legalization help the United States, but it would also do a huge favor to Mexico which has been torn apart by the war on "drugs". If the United States could legally produce its own drugs without having to import them in illegally from Mexico, then Mexican drug cartels would hemorrhage money. In fact, US border patrol has already seen a decrease in marijuana trafficking due to many states legalizing it. As the US continues to legalize drugs in more states, we can expect to see Mexican drug cartels lose even more market share until their demand completely disappears, replaced by legally operated businesses in the US.
+
+## Money
+> "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results." (Narcotics Anonymous pamphlet)
+If you believe that quote, then the war on drugs is the definition of insanity. The US has spent over a trillion dollars waging the war on drugs for about half a century. Despite the cost, drug use has expanded. Economic productivity is sacrificed in favor of mass imprisonment of drug users. Even a single minor offense can cost a lifetime of economic opportunity. It can mean you aren't eligible for certain jobs, health benefits or financial aid. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, roughly half of federal inmates are in prison for drug offenses[10]. In 2018, the Bureau of Prisons reported that the cost for federal inmates was $36,299.25 per year. By legalizing all drugs and pardoning all drug-related offenses, taxpayers could save about 3 billion dollars per year. Not to mention the DEA could be abolished saving tens of billions annually.
+
+Criminalization also burdens the healthcare system dealing with consequences of unsafe, contaminated drug use. Enforcement against drug paraphernalia causes sharing of needles which spreads disease. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if drugs were legalized since they would be regulated and tested for purity. Places that rely on tourism for economic activity are negatively affected when they are seen as dangerous due to drug cartel activity. Money that is spent on unregulated, illegal drugs can't be spent on regulated, taxable and legal parts of the economy. Minorities and low income groups that are already economically vulnerable are more likely to be arrested for drugs, further decreasing future job prospects. Smaller economies are heavily distorted by the drug war. I could go on forever, but you can see that the drug war makes no sense from an economic standpoint.
+
+## Reducing Corruption
+Wherever there is an organized illicit drug industry, there is also going to be police corruption. Mexico knows this all too well. In December 2019, Genaro García Luna[11], Mexico's former minister in charge of the federal police for 6 years, was arrested for allegedly taking millions from the Sinaloa cartel in return for safe passage of the cartel's drug shipments and information on other rival cartels. Just last month General Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda[12], Mexico's former army chief for 6 years, was arrested on drug trafficking and money laundering charges. The CIA in the US was allegedly involved in cocaine trafficking[13] in which several investigations ensued.
+
+The bottom line is dealing with the cartels is mutually beneficial for those in power, so long as they don't get caught. Those in government and the police have all the wrong economic incentives when it comes to the drug war. In some government positions in countries with rampant corruption, it's probably an unwritten job requirement to work with the cartels. We'll probably never know which positions those are for sure though. Corruption happens in the shadows and it's always difficult to produce any concrete evidence. Legalizing drugs would eliminate the cartel's source of profit, which means politicians would no longer have any financial incentive to work with them. It follows that drug-related government and police corruption would decrease.
+
+## Improved Police-Community Relations
+The war on "drugs" is responsible for police militarization more than anything else. Peaceful protestors and rioters face chemical irritants, armored vehicles and riot gear because the war on "drugs" has ensured police have military-style gear. Police militarization causes officers to view themselves as a confrontational force instead of community-oriented. In the eyes of the citizenry, this makes police look like an occupying force rather than public servants.
+
+I'm not dumping all the blame on cops either. The job of police officers is to enforce the law. When the law is unjust, the police still have to enforce it. It's not fair on them because it makes them look bad. Ending the war on "drugs" would do so much for police-community relations. Children wouldn't have to watch their parents hauled off to jail for choosing to engage in a victimless activity. Families wouldn't be torn apart. Drug-related police corruption would end, as I talked about in the above section. Police departments could shift their resources toward stopping murderers and rapists, people causing real harm to society. Without ending the war on "drugs", public confidence in policing will continue to erode. In the year 2020 where we have nationwide demonstrations against police brutality[14], the Justice Department declaring NYC, Portland and Seattle "Anarchist Jurisdictions"[15], and police abandoning precincts[16], police definitely shouldn't be perpetuating a failed drug war that has lasted half a century and will only further diminish public trust in the police.
+
+## Why not just Decriminalize?
+In the late 1980's and early 1990's, 1 out of every 10 citizens in Portugal was addicted to heroin. To combat this, Portugal decriminalized all drug use. And it worked. Incarceration rates went down, infectious disease cases of HIV went down, and fatal overdoses went down. Decriminalization wasn't the only thing that changed though. It was accompanied by a culture shift in the public attitude toward drugs and drug addiction. When your country isn't busy locking people up over drugs, it can focus on helpful things like treatment, housing, and employment to help people recover. Several other countries have ended their war on drugs[17]. So why not just decriminalize drugs? Why the need to legalize?
+
+First off, I need to explain the difference between the two. In general, decriminalization means that there are no longer criminal penalties for an action. There may still be fines. Legalization means that the action is fully legal. There is no associated penalty. Drug possession should, without a doubt, at least be decriminalized because drug use isn't a criminal issue. Drug manufacture can be regulated by the FDA[18], but drug possession should be fully legalized. There is no reason to punish drug users solely for possessing drugs whether that be fines or jail time. That's why all drug possession should be legalized, not just decriminalized.
+
+If you want to deter drug use, then there are better approaches than not fully legalizing drugs. This is where you could get creative. As a single example, turn the idea of a fine on its head. Offer a cash reward to addicts for staying clean. Consider cultural influences and other societal factors that may be causing people to turn toward drugs, such as poverty or mental illness. Perhaps the reason drug use is so high is because society has other problems that aren't being attended to, and drugs are just a symptom of it. This is where policy could be informed by sociological research. If you think criminalizing or not fully legalizing drugs is the only way to deter their use, then I'd encourage you to think more creatively.
+
+# Drug Regulation
+Let's move on to regulation. Regulation of drugs is important for ensuring drug quality, fair pricing, safety and education. But it's also probably a good idea not to regulate drugs so heavily that a sizeable black market continues to exist. I'm not going to focus on regulation other than to say deciding on the regulations should be an evidence-based process. Lawmakers have almost 50 years of evidence on how not to treat drugs in society, so maybe they can learn from past mistakes and other countries that have decriminalized drugs and come up with regulations as drugs are legalized.
+
+# Drug Education
+As for education, let's talk about some of the things schools shouldn't do. First and foremost, school drug education programs should stop lying to children about drugs. Schools should stop teaching children that every hard drug user is an addict. Schools should stop teaching abstinence as the only practical way of protecting oneself from harmful drugs. And they should stop using green-tinted goggles to mimic the effects of marijuana. Yes, they actually did that[19].
+
+So what should schools do? They should tell the truth. They should teach that the war on "drugs" has been one of the greatest moral failures of our time, a colossal waste of money, time, resources and human life that could have been better spent on literally anything else. Education programs should provide a fairminded, evidence-based view of the advantages and disadvantages of drug use per each drug. Drug education programs need to instruct young adults which drugs are worth doing, which are not, how often and in what setting, once they are of age. Drug education should come before most young adults are offered drugs. Program instructors could be social workers instead of police officers because drug addiction is not a criminal issue. It's a health issue. As we end the war on drugs, social workers should take responsibility for dealing with drug-related issues. Social workers can be trained based on prior drug research and hear testimony from non-addicted healthy drug users and addicts alike so they can get an accurate sense of the positive and negative effects of different drugs. This would put them in a good position to educate youth about drugs.
+
+# Post Drug War Society
+Now that I've covered a few points on education, how will we convert our current society into a post drug war society? One answer is we need better resources for treating drug addiction. Education can only do so much if there aren't effective resources out there. Drug treatment centers don't even have to abide by federal guidelines and it's debatable if they even work at all. That has to change. They need to be evidence-based and evaluated for effectiveness.
+
+Legalization should also be accompanied by a culture shift. Once drugs are legalized, drug users won't necessarily be criminals. That will go a long way in making it easier for society not to demonize them. People that use drugs are not "bad people". It's nowhere near that simple. There are as many reasons people use drugs as there are drugs. There are people that use drugs in a healthy, responsible way and people that don't. As I said before, there needs to be more resources for drug users in order to promote responsible use. And it's hard to provide resources for that in a society where drugs are heavily criminalized and stigmatized. In a society where drug use is criminalized and stigmatized, drug users have to hide their drug use from family, friends and strangers for fear of legal and social repercussions. This culture of secrecy causes needless psychological suffering for people that use drugs for the wrong reasons. The social stigma around drug use causes users not to seek out help when they desperately need it. That includes addiction treatment, healthcare and psychiatric help. In a society where drugs are legalized and not stigmatized, none of that would be an issue. Drug users could be more open about their habits and get the resources they need to be responsible without worrying about being shamed or arrested.
+
+The war on "drugs" seems to be coming to an end, albeit slowly. It's not over yet though. If not for the drug war, Breonna Taylor[20] would still be with us. How many more people are going to have to spend years behind bars and forever be labeled felons for engaging in a victimless activity? How many more honest, otherwise law-abiding citizens are going to die for a war that should never have been waged to begin with? When is the needless violence perpetuated by the war on "drugs" going to finally end? Eventually, there will come a day when the very last person has their life ruined by the war on human beings. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Just_Say_No](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Just_Say_No)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education)
+[5: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-just-say-no-doesnt-work](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-just-say-no-doesnt-work)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Federal_supervised_release](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Federal_supervised_release)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Controlled_substance_analog](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Controlled_substance_analog)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing)
+[9: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/marijuana-legalization-federal-laws-100688](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/marijuana-legalization-federal-laws-100688)
+[10: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp](https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp)
+[11: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/former-mexican-secretary-public-security-arrested-drug-trafficking-conspiracy-and](https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/former-mexican-secretary-public-security-arrested-drug-trafficking-conspiracy-and)
+[12: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/us/mexico-general-cienfuegos-dea.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/us/mexico-general-cienfuegos-dea.html)
+[13: https://wikiless.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking](https://wikiless.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking)
+[14: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/12/nationwide-protests-over-police-brutality-continue-cities-across-us-cut-and](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/12/nationwide-protests-over-police-brutality-continue-cities-across-us-cut-and)
+[15: https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/anarchist-jurisdictions-portland-new-york-seattle](https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/anarchist-jurisdictions-portland-new-york-seattle)
+[16: https://nypost.com/2020/05/29/minneapolis-police-abandon-precinct-after-protesters-set-it-on-fire](https://nypost.com/2020/05/29/minneapolis-police-abandon-precinct-after-protesters-set-it-on-fire)
+[17: https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/drug-addiction/10-countries-that-ended-their-war-on-drugs](https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/drug-addiction/10-countries-that-ended-their-war-on-drugs)
+[18: https://www.fda.gov](https://www.fda.gov)
+[19: https://stonerthings.com/do-weed-goggles-work](https://stonerthings.com/do-weed-goggles-work)
+[20: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Death_of_Breonna_Taylor](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Death_of_Breonna_Taylor)
diff --git a/content/post/manufacturing-agreement.md b/content/post/manufacturing-agreement.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..644bb81
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/manufacturing-agreement.md
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+---
+title: "Manufacturing Agreement"
+date: 2021-08-21T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Manufacturing Agreement
+You might think I'm writing this to lecture you that you should read the terms of service (ToS) and privacy policy (PP) agreements of the online services you use. While you definitely should, that's not my point. I'm writing this to share my observation that not agreeing to the ToS and PP is often impractical. And for that reason, in cases where it is impractical to refuse, we shouldn't consider it agreement. Rather, it is illegitimate, manufactured agreement.
+
+In order for this post to give a more balanced perspective, I'm first going to give online services their due, then users.
+
+# In Defense of Online Services
+## Users Sometimes Have Alternatives
+First of all, not agreeing to the ToS and PP for online services is more practical than most people think. I've spent the past few years setting up my life in such a way that I don't have to agree to ToS and PP agreements when I don't want to. My job doesn't require it and my personal life doesn't demand it. While I understand that not everybody can or wants to set their life up like I have mine, the main reason I see people not avoiding ToS and PPs isn't because it's impractical. It's out of apathy and laziness.
+
+If more people would read and try to reject ToS and PPs they disagree with, they would succeed. For instance, if you're a student and a class requires you to use Goolag[1] disservices, you need a Goolag account. You have to submit to extensive tracking across the web, selling of your data, and other nasty things. There are several ways around making an account though. Here's a few ideas listed in order of which you ought to try first:
+
+1. Talk to the professor. Explain that you don't agree to Goolag's ToS and PP. If you explain your position respectfully, many professors will at least be sympathetic to the problem. They may have some advice or even modify the coursework so it doesn't require Goolag.
+2. If it is not the professor's choice to use Goolag, talk to someone higher up about the problem.
+3. Drop the class in favor of a different one that doesn't require a Goolag account.
+4. Use alternative free software that does the same job.
+5. If you're working in a group, have someone who already has a Goolag account use the disservices.
+
+A coworker once told me "Everything is negotiable". So don't just give in the instant there's an obstacle. It's so easy to say "Well the professor said I have to use Goolag. Guess I have no choice!". But that's giving up before you've even tried. It's defeatist. Even when you aren't presented with the alternatives to signing a ToS and PP, oftentimes they exist. All you have to do ask for them. Ask and you shall receive.
+
+## ToS and PPs Are Needed
+In defense of online services, ToS and PPs are necessary. There has to be a legal way to manage the expectations between an online service and its users. While businesses should be required to provide a version of the ToS and PP readable by non-lawyers, they can't be faulted for the official agreement being written in legalese. They have to cover their ass to prevent being sued. It's not their fault for creating a ToS and PP.
+
+## Summary
+So that wraps up my apologizing for businesses. In summary, I've talked about how resisting evil ToS and PPs is more practical than most people think. I've given several examples of how to resist. I've pointed out that most people who are aware of the issue aren't even trying to say no. And finally, businesses have to write up these agreements. They don't have a choice.
+
+Now it's time to give users their due.
+
+# In Defense of Users
+## Users Are Conditioned Not to Read ToS and PPs
+The first and most obvious point is users are conditioned not to read these agreements. An experimental survey of 543 participants by university researchers Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch and Jonathan A. Obar confirmed what everybody already knew[2]: nobody reads the full ToS and PP. At best, they get skimmed.
+
+It makes sense that they only get skimmed. Who has the time to read and understand them? When we're told to sign up to an online service by someone at school or work to complete an assignment, it's never presented as a choice. You're not allotted extra time to read the agreements you're expected to agree to. You're just expected hit accept.
+
+At some point, the process of clicking the checkbox becomes so automated that you forget what it even means. You just see an empty checkbox waiting to be clicked representing...your ability to complete school or do your job. That brings up the main point I want to make in this post.
+
+## Not Signing the ToS/PP Can Be Impractical
+Corporations have created an environment where not agreeing to their ToS and PPs is impractical. That is, you can't work a normal job to support yourself and family, can't go to school, can't meet new people, can't function in daily life without agreeing to their policies. And that's where not agreeing becomes impractical. Now let's look at some examples of that in the wild.
+
+### China's WeChat
+WeChat, or as I call it, "WeShat" has taken over China. If you live in China, many businesses won't do business with you if you don't have WeShat. WeShat is how people talk to friends and family. It's how business is done. And if you meet someone on the street, they won't exchange emails, phone numbers, or business cards. It's WeShat all the way.
+
+WeShat is so ingrained in Chinese society that not having it is impractical. And there are plenty of reasons not to want to use it. Just read its ToS[3] and PP[4]. Everything you do in the app from your payments to private chats, contacts, and location is collected and sent to Tencent. It's an unjust Chinese government backdoor into the private lives of Chinese citizens. No sane person should want such a dangerous app, given a choice.
+
+That's just it though. There's really only a choice in theory. You can't function in society without it, so "choice" is merely an illusion. WeShat is a very clear cut case of user agreement being manufactured. While you could maybe find a way to manage without it, clearly that's not what Tencent nor the Chinese government intends for you.
+
+### Other Countries
+I don't know of another example that is as extreme as China's WeShat. It's definitely a good topic for research. "How practical is it to get by without X app in Y country". I imagine you might have a difficult but not impossible time getting by without WhatsApp in India. Many countries all over the world rely on the infrastructure of American technology companies such as Facecrook, Goolag, and Micro$oft.
+
+I was unable to complete my education out of refusal to agree to big tech's ToS and PPs. The sad truth of the matter is, in much of the world, it's totally impractical to get a job and go to school without signing your soul away to big tech. But avoiding the ToS and PPs won't only leave you economically disadvantaged, it'll leave you socially isolated too.
+
+### Social Activities
+It's a basic human need to socialize with others. We are social animals. None of us is an island. But the most popular social media apps require you to agree to let them harvest your data. It's not so much that you can't avoid any particular app's ToS and PP. It's that all the apps that anyone actually uses have a ToS and PP requiring you to give up your data. The dreaded network effect[5] works for big tech and against everybody else.
+
+Tech CEOs smugly respond "You don't have to agree to the ToS and PP. Just don't use our app.", but throwing the ToS and PP in user's faces is disingenuous. Maybe you don't have to agree to their social network's ToS and PP, but you practically have to agree to some social networking app's ToS and PP. Saying no to all big social networks, for some people, is just social suicide. Yet all the biggest social medias track users and do other nasty things that nobody should have to agree to.
+
+So pick your poison. Will it be Birdshitter, Discord, Facecrook, Tinder, WeShat, or WhatsApp? You could use the fediverse[6] which isn't poison, but it has very few users compared to big tech surveillance platforms. If you're trying to meet people, you could also meet with people in real life. But then you're limited to the subset of locals who still go out in person to meet, which seems to be a shrinking demographic especially since the pandemic hit. The social direction the world seems to be going if it's not already there is give in to big tech or be a hermit. Why is the digital world like this?
+
+## Polyopolies Prevent Diverse ToS and PPs
+Well the reason not agreeing to certain ToS or PPs is impractical is because corporations are allowed to grow too large. They become polyopolies too powerful to refuse. Governments should solve the manufactured agreement by creating a tax system which disincentivizes corporations becoming too big. With smaller corporations, there would be more competition. With more competition, users would have more options of which ToS and PPs they agree to.
+
+## Governments Lack Strong Consumer Privacy Laws
+Another thing governments should do that attacks the heart of the problem is create laws which provide strong consumer privacy protections. The most objectionable sections of PPs of online services have to do with data collection. By creating strong consumer privacy laws, harmful PPs would become illegal and unenforceable.
+
+Clearly laws like GDPR have failed to adequately protect citizens. The best way to protect citizens would be to enact a law preventing digital systems from collecting personal data about people in the first place[7]. If such a law were in effect, even if your agreement to the PP were manufactured, harm to your privacy would still be extremely limited.
+
+## Courts Treat Manufactured Agreement as Legitimate
+Another problem is courts consider clickwrap agreements[8] legally binding even if refusal is impractical. Impractical meaning the user can't function in society without agreeing. For example, the user can't keep a job, get an education, socialize, and other basic things people should be able to do.
+
+When the expensive corporate lawyer says "You didn't have to agree", this should be legally challengeable. If it can be proven in court that the user had no practical choice to click the button, the judge should treat the agreement as manufactured, not real legal assent. Of course it would still be up to the judge to decide what counts as "practical" and how far that extends. Obviously corporations still need a way to create legally binding ToS contracts, but "sign this or you can't function in life" can't be considered assent to the terms of the contract.
+
+This may help redecentralize polyopolies since ToS and PP agreements protect service providing corporations. Corporations wouldn't want those agreements to fail to hold up in court due to the impracticality of refusing to sign them. This may also prevent corporate power from encroaching upon institutions owned by the state (E.g. public universities). It directly incentivizes corporations to ensure users have a real choice in accepting or not accepting.
+
+# Manufacturing Consent
+Now that I've said everything I want to say about agreement to ToS and PPs in the context of online services, I want to end this post by tying it all together with Noam Chomsky's concept in his 1988 book Manufacturing Consent. Specifically, I want to talk about how social media "services" are particularly dangerous.
+
+## What is Manufacturing Consent?
+In this post I've used the term "manufactured agreement" referring to the agreement of the user. The user is made to feel like they have a choice because they can click a box or not. But sometimes there is no practical option not to click it. The term "manufacturing consent" on the other hand refers to the way that news is selected by its stakeholders. It means creating a system in which citizens will accept corporate-sponsored propaganda without questioning, distributed through the mass media.
+
+## How Social Media Manufactures Agreement and Consent
+There is an extremely dangerous interplay between my idea of manufactured agreement and Chomsky's concept of manufactured consent. I'll explain.
+
+### Step 1
+First, agreement to the ToS and PP of the social media services is manufactured. I've already talked about how that happens.
+
+### Step 2
+Next, the services are created to be maximally addictive. Social media companies even hire psychologists to help make their platforms as addictive as possible, worse even than tobacco. So once you're on them, they're hijacking your brain to stay. You're hooked. Now the brainwashing can commence.
+
+### Step 3
+Apply Chomsky's idea that the information you see is filtered by what the stakeholders want you to see. But with social media, it's even worse. When Chomsky first published his book Manufacturing Consent in 1988, it wasn't possible for the media to manipulate people in an individually targeted way. Today, all you have to do is throw some money at Cambridge Analytica and they'll manipulate an entire election for you through Facecrook by using algorithms to individually target users[9].
+
+Now consider that half of Americans get their news from social media at least sometimes[10], according to Pew research. At this point, it's beginning to sound very dark. So the big question is "What can we as mere consumers do about it?". I have a few pieces of advice to finish off this post.
+
+## Advice to Consumers of News
+### Avoid Big Tech's Social Media Platforms
+My first recommendation to avoid being manipulated, even if you're forced onto the platform by school or work, is never use those platforms to consume news. Don't look at news feeds. Don't give likes to any posts. Don't comment. Don't share. Interact minimally with the platform. Do the bare minimum to get by. Remember that all those platforms can be easily manipulated and controlled by those with money and you shouldn't trust them.
+
+### Curate the News You Consume
+My second and final piece of advice to avoid being brainwashed by social media is to be picky about which news you do consume. Limit your news consumption. I recommend using an Atom/RSS feed reader, compiling your news from several independent, trusted sources. If you don't know what Atom/RSS is, check out my post about it[11]. Feed readers are easy to use and they give you full control over how much news you see, what news you see, and how it shows up.
+
+As a side note, I'm not saying consuming partisan news from giant media companies like CNN or Faux News is all bad. It's good for finding out what the stakeholders want you to be focusing on. If you can tell the facts apart from the media spin on them, then you'll be fine. I'd still recommend an Atom/RSS feed reader though so that you have control over what you see. If you're just visiting CNN or Faux New's website, they control your browsing experience which is another way you can be manipulated. Just use Atom/RSS instead.
+
+# Conclusion
+That's all I got for this one! Thanks to everyone who read this far. If reading this sparked any interesting ideas in your mind related to manufacturing consent or you thought of some examples I didn't mention, feel free to email me about it. My contact details are found on the about page[12].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Goolag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag)
+[2: The Biggest Lie on the Internet: Ignoring the Privacy Policies and Terms of Service Policies of Social Networking Services](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757465)
+[3: WeShat ToS](https://www.wechat.com/en/service_terms.html)
+[4: WeShat PP](https://www.wechat.com/en/privacy_policy.html)
+[5: Network Effect](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Network_effect)
+[6: Fediverse](https://fediverse.party/)
+[7: What sort of laws would give us real privacy?](https://www.stallman.org/articles/real-privacy-laws.html)
+[8: The Clicks That Bind: Ways Users "Agree" to Online Terms of Service](https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service)
+[9: Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal#Donald_Trump_campaign)
+[10: News Use Across Social Media Platforms in 2020](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/01/12/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-in-2020/)
+[11: Atom and RSS](../../../../2020/12/17/atom-and-rss/)
+[12: About Page](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/metaethics.md b/content/post/metaethics.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e09c102
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/metaethics.md
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+---
+title: "Metaethics"
+date: 2020-10-11T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+I'm going to talk about metaethics using the 3 questions posed by Bernard Rosen and Richard Garner. The first part is moral semantics. Moral semantics asks how we should interpret moral language, words like good, evil, right, wrong and ought. The next is moral ontology. Moral ontology asks about the nature of moral judgements. Are there many kinds of moral judgements? Are those judgements true for everyone or only specific groups? Lastly, there is moral epistemology. It talks about what we can know about morality and how we know it, irrespective of its nature. For instance, how can we justify our moral judgements to others? I'll start with moral semantics. Without defining the semantics, nothing else in this post would have any meaning.
+
+# Moral Semantics
+There are at least 2 desirable properties for our moral semantics:
+
+1. It should allow us to convince rational agents of our moral judgements.
+2. It should minimize the number of assumptions we have to make.
+
+Theories such as emotivism[1] assert moral sentences just express emotions. When I say "Murder is wrong", I don't mean "I dislike murder". Neither does anyone I have ever met. We want more out of a moral theory than expressing emotions. We want to be able to convince others of our judgements. Emotivism isn't what we're after. What about universal prescriptivism[2]? It holds that moral judgements such as "Murder is wrong" should be interpreted as "Don't murder". But just commanding someone to do something isn't necessarily convincing because it doesn't employ logical reasoning. It's unlikely to convince anyone that doesn't already believe they shouldn't be murdering. So again, it fails our first requirement of being able to convince others. Let's move on to some other theories.
+
+## Hume's Guillotine
+Ethical naturalism[3] says that moral propositions are objective properties of the cosmos. This means that we can look at features of reality and "see" what is right and wrong in the same way that we can look into a microscope and deduce the germ theory of disease. This idea of moral semantics is self-evidently absurd. Making no extra assumptions, nothing about the way the world is tells us the way it should be. I cannot deduce "Murder is wrong" from empirical facts like "The sky is blue" or any other facts about the physical or metaphysical cosmos. This strict divide between facts and moral judgements is known as Hume's Guillotine[4].
+
+Ethical non-naturalism[5] tries to bypass Hume's Guillotine by saying that these moral judgements are irreducible. Nothing about the way the cosmos is tells us how it should be, but how things should be is an objective irreducible (possibly intuitive) property of the cosmos itself. If someone asks me "Why shouldn't I murder?", the only correct response according to ethical non-naturalism is philosophical jargon like "It is an irreducible, intrinsic property of the universe that murder is wrong". If another ethical non-naturalist comes along saying murder is ethical, all I can do is repeat how my belief is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the other person must be mistaken. It would be like watching two presuppositionalists[6] argue in circles. I'd be comfortable going on record saying presuppositional apologetics has never convinced anyone that didn't already believe what it is they were presupposing. More like they already believed something and went looking for philosophical jargon to defend it. That's exactly what ethical non-naturalism does and also why it's not convincing. Ethical non-naturalism fails both of our criteria because it is unconvincing to third-parties and requires making assumptions.
+
+So far, we haven't had any luck finding a moral semantics that satisfies both our requirements. What about divine command theory[7]? According to it, god's moral judgements are correct. There is no evidence that a god or gods exist, but let's pretend for a moment that a god does exist and that god makes moral judgements. According to divine command theory, god's judgements are true. This raises the Euthyphro dilemma[8]: Are god's moral judgements true just because god declares them, or are god's moral judgements true because god only declares true moral judgements? If the former is true, then god can declare "Murder is perfectly morally okay" and it would be true because god said so and morality would be arbitrary. If the latter is true, then god is just the messenger for moral judgements that are true independent of god's opinion. Therefore god would be arbitrary. Ideal observer theory[9] suffers from the same dilemma. Even if we ignore all of that, both theories still fail our second criteria. The assumption is that god or the ideal observer's judgements are true. We want to avoid making strong assumptions, so these theories aren't good either for our criteria.
+
+## Moral Progress
+I want to define "moral progress" before I continue. Moral progress means just what is sounds like; that it is possible to go from a less ethical society or individual to a more ethical one. Certain moral theories don't allow us to do this. Error theory[10] says that all moral claims are false. This is an assumption and it doesn't allow us to convince rational agents of our moral judgements because all moral judgements are false. "Murder is wrong" and "Murder is good" are both false under this theory. So it's a non-starter. We can't do anything useful with this theory. We can't convince others, can't reason, can't make deductions, and never have any reason to change our minds.
+
+Moral progress is also impossible under moral relativism[11]. It's difficult to draw a hard line between what constitutes a "culture" or a "group", but let's ignore that for now. Let's say we have a very clear idea of who belongs to which culture at what time. According to relativistic morality, what is good is defined as what the "group" accepts as good. This group could be a single individual or a society. Let's take the case of a single individual. If I am my own group, then whatever I believe is automatically correct because I believe it. It's "true for me" that murder is wrong. It may not be true for another person or group, but it is true for me. Morality is relative.
+
+With this reasoning, I am never wrong. There is never a reason for me to change my mind about any moral judgement because I'm right by definition. I can't convince other individuals because whatever they believe is "true for them", so this theory fails our first criteria. With cultural relativism, the culture is the group, not the individual. So, it might be possible for an individual to be wrong if they disagree with their culture. This would mean that an abolitionist in a slave-owning culture would be morally wrong about slavery because the predominant culture is in favor of owning slaves. Also, if the culture decides slavery is wrong, then there are two interpretations that can be made of their previous support of owning slaves. The first interpretation is that the culture was wrong to think that slave-owning was just, and now they have the right belief. But according to cultural relativism, this would also be true in the reverse direction. Going from an abolitionist culture to a slave-owning one would also have to be considered moral progress, since the only metric by which moral judgements can be made is what the existing culture believes. The second interpretation is that the culture was never wrong. When the culture was in favor of slave owning, it was in fact good to own slaves for that culture. And when the culture was in favor of the abolition of slavery, then owning slaves was immoral for that culture. This would imply that moral judgements can change over time, but moral progress never really happens. Moral progress aside, convincing other cultures of your culture's moral judgements has no rational basis in cultural relativism. Furthermore, it assumes that the culture is always right, a very strong assumption that fails our second criteria.
+
+## Objective Morality
+Other moral semantics define morality in different ways. For example, some define good to be that which maximizes the well-being of all conscious creatures and bad to be that which maximizes suffering. These objective moral semantics are not relative to any individual or culture. They do allow for moral progress and they have the benefit that they allow us to convince others of our moral judgements. For a contrived example, let's say I believe that "Murder is wrong", but my interlocutor thinks that "Murder is good". If we are both using the same definition of good (the maximization of well-being), then I can show that murder reduces well-being, empirically. I can show how it negatively affects the well-being of the family and friends of the victim and talk about the pain of being murdered and the loss of the possibility of future well-being for that person. To use my earlier example, I can point out how slave-owning societies have less well-being in total than those without slaves. Therefore an abolitionist culture would be morally superior according to my definition of good and going from a slave-owning culture to an abolitionist one would be moral progress.
+
+The big problem with objective morality is it must make at least one assumption about what ought to be in order to bypass Hume's Guillotine. With utilitarianism, I am assuming that maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering is what we're after. I have to assume that to deduce that murder is wrong. Otherwise I can point out that murder reduces well-being all day long, but it won't get me anywhere because good has nothing to do with well-being. So we are stuck with either not being able to reason about moral judgements with rational agents, or assuming that good has something to do with well-being.
+
+I am levying the same criticism about popular moral philosophy that Immanuel Kant[12] did back in his day through my examples. Kant rightly realized that objective moral philosophy has the insurmountable problem that it must rely on a "heavily subjective" moral imperative to get started. The earlier example I gave of well-being does not apply to people who only care about their own well-being. Utilitarianism[13] will never persuade moral action on behalf of those that only care about themselves. Therefore, objective morality can never surpass hypothetical imperatives[14]. A hypothetical imperative only applies to someone who wishes to achieve certain ends. If I want to pass a test, I'd better study. Another way to say this is I only need to study if I want to pass the test. If I don't care about passing, then I can study or not. It makes no difference. Kant saw this as inadequate and came up with categorical imperatives[15] instead. Categorical imperatives boil down to maxims[16] which also have to be assumed. So while Kant rightly criticized the objective morality of his day for making assumptions, he went on to create his own theory also based on assumptions.
+
+## Hypothetical Imperatives
+In a way, with this post, I am doing what Kant originally set out to do. He pointed out the same problems I see with objective morality and attempted to fix them. That is, existing moral systems all either require making some strong assumption or they don't make any assumptions but are useless when it comes to convincing rational agents of our moral judgements. But in doing so, he just made his own assumptions in the form of categorical imperatives. I am not going to do that. Kant's categorical imperatives are unnecessary. Hypothetical imperatives are all that's needed. Kant would have been right if he had just stopped after his criticism of objective morality and not tried to create his own Kantian morality. I do not need to assume my way around Hume's Guillotine because I'm not going to make any assumptions. There's no need for morality to go beyond hypothetical imperatives. I shall explain further.
+
+We all have values. Values are things we care about. Some values are fundamental, meaning that we care about them in and of themselves. Others are instrumental. We care about them because they "derive" from other values. If I value passing a test, then I ought to study. Studying would be good. In this case, studying is an instrumental value. I care about studying because I care about passing the test. I care about passing the test because I care about passing the class. I care about passing the class because I care about graduating. I care about graduating because graduating increases my chances of getting a high-paying job. I care about getting a high-paying job because I care about having money. I care about having money because it increases my opportunities. I care about increasing my opportunities because increasing my opportunities increases my well-being. And I care about my well-being in and of itself. In that example, everything except well-being is an instrumental value. Well-being is the intrinsic value.
+
+Why does any of that matter? It matters because we can make certain assumptions about others' values. We can assume others generally value staying alive because evolution has baked that into all of us. Whether that is an intrinsic value or instrumental isn't important. As long as others value their continued existence, we can convince them that they ought to care about certain other instrumental values as well like having enough food to eat, having shelter, acting in a non-violent manner, etc. If we know someone's values, we can reason with them about what other values they should have, if they are rational. People often aren't rational, meaning they often have instrumental values incompatible with their intrinsic values. This is a fancy way of saying they don't know what's good for them. People can also be irrational by not doing what they know is good for them. It is common knowledge that a healthy diet and exercise is important, but we don't always do that even though we all want to be healthy. While people aren't always rational, I still consider it an important requirement of a moral system to be able to use rational arguments to convince others.
+
+Hypothetical imperatives don't make any assumptions because they are stated as conditionals. They also allow us to reason with other rational agents about moral judgements. The vast majority of the population values something like well-being for themselves and other conscious creatures. Therefore, I can deduce their other instrumental values if they are being rational. This allows us to collaborate on our values. It means we can tell someone "Murder is wrong" and they understand that to mean "Murder is in contradiction with one or more of my instrumental or intrinsic values". It doesn't do any good to tell a psychopath that murder is wrong because they don't value the well-being of others. This is a big problem in artificial intelligence. If a general artificial intelligence is created that is incompatible with our intrinsic human values, it could be extraordinarily dangerous. The orthogonality thesis[17] explains that any level of intelligence is compatible with any goal. This means a superintelligent AI smarter than we can imagine could value maximizing the number of peanuts in the universe above all else, including human life. It need not have human values which is what makes it so dangerous. It's not that it's bent on harming people. It's just so bent on maximizing peanuts that it grinds humans up for resources to create peanuts. It is neutral toward our well-being because it only cares about peanuts.
+
+We aren't going to convince psychopaths or AI systems to change their behavior by presenting them with moral theories. Hypothetical imperatives can explain why this is. Both the psychopath and the AI system do not share the same moral imperatives as most of humanity, so convincing them rationally is a lost cause. We don't lose anything by using only hypothetical imperatives. With rational agents that share our values, we can make convincing rational arguments. With rational agents that don't share our values such as psychopaths or AI, we never had any hope of convincing them anyway. With irrational agents, we may be able to convince them, but not using rational argument. Therefore whatever we are doing to convince them can't be considered moral reasoning, so we need not worry about it.
+
+## Wrapping Up Moral Semantics
+Returning back to our original question, how can we define words like good, evil, right, and wrong? Consider the fact that most of humanity shares the same values. In general, those values boil down to well-being for ourselves and others. So, the best way to understand a sentence like "Murder is wrong" might be "Murder is in contradiction with the instrumental or intrinsic values shared by nearly all of humanity". There is an obvious objection to this. The objection is that some people just have different intrinsic values entirely. Psychopaths just don't value the well-being of others intrinsically. A statement like "Murder is wrong" has no meaning to them. Let's take a less extreme example. Person A values well-being so fervently that their ideal future looks like creating as many simulated beings as possible and flooding their minds with the utmost pleasure for the longest amount of time possible. Person A wants heaven on earth, literally. Person B on the other hand gets uncomfortable at the thought of utopia. Person B values variety, spicing things up a bit once in a while. They want to increase well-being also, but think that some suffering in the cosmos is appropriate. It's what keeps us all human and shouldn't be completely gotten rid of. Person A and B both want increased well-being for themselves and others, but given a thousand years of arguing they could never come to a consensus on where exactly the peak of the moral landscape lies.
+
+The second less extreme scenario I gave with Person A and Person B is far more common I imagine than psychopaths or AI. True psychopaths are rare and we don't have strong AGI yet. But every person you talk to probably pictures their version of heaven slightly differently. We want our moral language to be inclusive so we can convince others of our moral judgements, but everyone has slightly different intrinsic values. How can we reconcile this? My answer to this is simply that we don't need to. In the same way that the rays of light from the sun hit earth in parallel because the sun is so far away, most people's idea of utopia is far enough away from where we are now that the steps toward it are similar no matter what your idea of heaven is. Even if every person had radically different incompatible intrinsic values, the best thing we can do is try to find common instrumental values and work together on those. That is still the best option we have. So the only appropriate way to define moral language that I see is translating it into the language of hypothetical imperatives.
+
+Some may disagree, but I tend to be pragmatic. Language should be useful for communication. That's where I get my first criteria for moral semantics. What good is moral language if we can't use it to make rational arguments to convince others about our moral judgements? This is why I view theories like error theory, emotivism, and ethical non-naturalism as non-starters. They are not useful for convincing anybody of moral judgements and only serve to nullify moral language. Hypothetical imperatives are the most convincing way to interpret moral language such that extra assumptions are not necessary.
+
+# Moral Ontology
+Given that I am using hypothetical imperatives to interpret moral language, should moral statements be interpreted as universal or relative? When I say "Murder is wrong", how can that apply to others who do not value human well-being? They can't exactly translate that to "Murder contradicts my instrumental or intrinsic values" if it in fact doesn't. Does this mean everyone has their own morality and it's all relative[18]? Or should we treat common intrinsic values as universal[19] and even those that don't value the well-being of others are subject to that moral judgement?
+
+As I said before, we are far enough away from utopia that even if most of us don't share the exact same intrinsic values, they converge on instrumental values. Therefore, as a matter of language, it is best for us to talk as if everyone shares the value of well-being for themselves and others. This doesn't mean we universalize well-being into a global intrinsic value for everyone. Being a pragmatist, I care about convincing others of my values. I don't think it's really an important question if values are universal or relative. My answer to this would be interpret it however you want. Pragmatically, it isn't going to affect your ability to convince anyone. I personally am going to talk in a universal way because it sounds more natural and gets the point across. I am going to say "Murder is wrong", not "Murder is wrong, for me". "Murder is wrong" applies to everyone that shares the intrinsic value of increasing well-being and decreasing suffering, which is almost all humanity. So, even though I know that not everyone has an intrinsic set of values that can deduce "Murder is wrong", I am going to speak as if it's a universal anyway because it's close enough that I'm not going to speak with exception. "Murder is wrong" is a good analogy. Murder is wrong, generally. But what about in wartime? What about in self-defense? It's less clear. But despite that, we don't say things like "Murder is wrong except during wartime and except in self-defense and except...". We don't speak this way because the list of exceptions goes on forever. For the same reason, I am going to say "Murder is wrong" without considering all the edge cases like an AI that only values maximizing peanuts.
+
+The short answer to the moral ontology of my metaethics is "I don't care". You can treat it as relative or universal. It makes no difference to the hypothetical imperatives. Either someone shares your values and you can go about using rational argument to convince them or they don't and you can't. Whether you want to say "Murder is wrong" is true for only people that value well-being or it's true for everyone is a question I don't think deserves an answer. It's a question that doesn't have any meaning. Semantically, I think it makes the most sense to speak in universals ("Murder is wrong", not "Murder is wrong, for me") and I've given my reasons why. With that, I'll move on to the last section which is moral epistemology.
+
+# Moral Epistemology
+Now that we know how to interpret moral judgements, how can we actually support or defend moral judgements? Part of my motivation for writing this post is how much I enjoyed Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape[20]. I highly recommend it. In it, he explains how scientific facts can inform moral values. What many people take issue with is that he doesn't really solve the is-ought problem. He just asserts that morality has something to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. I don't take too much issue with this since it is almost universally true. I just avoid taking that step and instead use hypothetical imperatives to avoid running into the is-ought problem that is a popular critique of his book[21].
+
+The bigger problem I see with Sam's morality is one I brought up already. Even for those who do value well-being, there may be minute differences in the end goal those values imply. Some that value well-being may want a perfect utopia. Others that also value well-being may think that goes too far, that there should always be at least some discomfort to spice things up. Sam himself has admitted before that he finds the idea of a "well-being utopia" uncomfortable. His common response to criticisms of this sort is that the idea of well-being is fluid and continually evolving. However, this still doesn't solve the problem that some people, likely many people, just have irreconcilable intrinsic values, even if they all value well-being. For that reason, I choose not to assume that well-being is what everyone is after. This allows my theory to account for wide variances in value structures, but I understand why Sam starts with well-being.
+
+Now that I've finished criticizing what I think Sam got wrong, I'll talk about what he got right in his book. I'll start with a quote from Sam's book The Moral Landscape:
+
+> "If our well-being depends upon the interaction between events in our brains and events in the world, and there are better and worse ways to secure it, then some cultures will tend to produce lives that are more worth living than others; some political persuasions will be more enlightened than others; and some world views will be mistaken in ways that cause needless human misery."
+
+With this, we get a sense for how Sam thinks about how science can inform moral values (well-being). On this, I agree with him. He is pointing out that some ways of being produce more well-being than others. Some ways of living, some cultures, some political persuasions, some world views will tend to produce more well-being than others. And we can use science to discover which ways of doing things produces the most well-being for everyone, even given slight differences in the way individuals value well-being. If I go on for too long about science informing moral values, I will just be summarizing his book. Instead of that, I would recommend reading The Moral Landscape[22] to find out more. If you're a busy person, you can listen to the audiobook instead. Reading is more active than listening and also allows you to go at your own pace, so I would just read it if you have time.
+
+With the way Sam defines morality, the other value structures without well-being as an intrinsic value aren't really relevant. With my semantics, they are. So I want to make a quick observation. Science can inform all value structures, not only maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. This includes non-human value structures such as maximizing peanuts. You can imagine an AI using the scientific method to find the optimal configuration of matter for producing peanuts. If maximizing peanuts is your only intrinsic value, then science can inform you on what you should be doing to best accomplish that because some methods are going to produce more peanuts than other methods. This goes back to the hypothetical imperative. If you value maximizing peanuts, then you should use peanut-production method A rather than method B. Other than that, I think Sam's book does a great job at explaining how science can inform well-being.
+
+# Conclusion
+I believe this is my longest blog post yet. I don't get paid to write these posts. My main motivation for writing is to contribute to the world of ideas and I feel like I have ideas worth offering. I put a lot of thought and effort into my blog, so consider making a donation if you made it this far. Thanks for reading!
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Emotivism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Emotivism)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Universal_prescriptivism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Universal_prescriptivism)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ethical_non-naturalism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ethical_non-naturalism)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Euthyphro_problem#The_dilemma](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Euthyphro_problem#The_dilemma)
+[9: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory)
+[10: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Error_theory](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Error_theory)
+[11: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Moral_relativism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)
+[12: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)
+[13: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Utilitarian](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Utilitarian)
+[14: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperative](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperative)
+[15: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative)
+[16: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Maxim_(philosophy)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Maxim_(philosophy))
+[17: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Orthogonality_thesis](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Orthogonality_thesis)
+[18: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Moral_relativism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)
+[19: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Moral_universalism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Moral_universalism)
+[20: https://samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape/](https://samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape/)
+[21: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLJGabZ6siFHoC6Nh/sam-harris-and-the-is-ought-gap](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLJGabZ6siFHoC6Nh/sam-harris-and-the-is-ought-gap)
+[22: https://samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape/](https://samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape/)
diff --git a/content/post/mourning-the-loss-of-privacy.md b/content/post/mourning-the-loss-of-privacy.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7f8c72a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/mourning-the-loss-of-privacy.md
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+---
+title: "Mourning the Loss of Privacy"
+date: 2021-05-06T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Losing Privacy
+I mourn the loss of collective privacy in society year after year. Seeing people passively accept more mass surveillance and less privacy rather than fight back is disheartening. Especially young people. Young people just don't seem to care. They've given up on privacy. It's an old-fashioned idea for them. I'm obliged to qualify that with "some, not all" young people. Nonetheless I find it very troubling that it's hard to find young people with sane attitudes towards privacy. This isn't to exclude the older generations. A good number of older folks have been infected with the "nothing to hide" meme. They're not immune either. The reason I'm specifically worried about young people is because they define what is normal in society. I'm able to get most older people to agree with me that the loss of privacy is a bad thing. Young people are prone to disinterest in privacy and brushing off mass surveillance as "the way things are now".
+
+Privacy has lost so much ground compared to how it was before most people had personal computers and smartphones. People I know think losing privacy is a trajectory we cannot turn back from, that it will only get worse over time. I don't consider whether we can turn back a worthwhile question. We have to try. There's simply no alternative worth living for. I want to live in a vibrant democracy and the right to personal privacy is a necessary precondition for democracy. Mass surveillance apparatuses are incompatible with a democratic government. Knowledge is power and unlimited knowledge about everyone is... well, you get the picture.
+
+But enough of my preaching. I have to stop somewhere or I'll go on all day. If you've read my blog for long enough, you've heard my spiel on privacy before anyway. So let me instead give you some personal anecdotes about my privacy.
+
+# Personal Anecdotes
+I don't usually get too personal on this blog, but I feel like sharing my feelings and experiences on this subject.
+
+## Neighborhood Surveillance
+To start, I live in a civilized country which is a member of the Five Eye intelligence alliance (The United States). I can't even leave home without potentially appearing on my neighbor's Ring doorbell camera, and that bothers me. Ring is a proprietary doorbell surveillance camera system controlled by a private monopoly. My neighbor's camera surveils when I'm home, when I'm gone and what I do when in view of the camera. It may or may not use facial recognition to identify me and other characteristics such as my gait and walking pace to learn things about me. I have no way to know.
+
+Not only that, but it subverts my 4th amendment rights because it's warrantless surveillance. Some of you constitutional scholars will be quick to point out that the 4th amendment protects only from government surveillance, not corporate surveillance. The problem is even though the video surveillance isn't explicitly performed by the state, Scamazon gives the state access any time they want. Let's call it what it is, a loophole for the state to get around the 4th amendment. It's 24/7 warrantless surveillance I never consented to. All because my neighbor decided that, for some strange reason, doorbells need to have cameras now. Short of asking my neighbor to remove the camera, there's nothing I can do. And that's just when I leave home. On its own that's bad enough, but it doesn't even scratch the surface.
+
+## Interpersonal Surveillance
+Nowadays everyone carries personal tracking devices called smartphones. Unless the person I'm with is as privacy-aware as I am (virtually zero probability), they have apps on their phone that are probably listening to our conversation, even though it's supposed to be private. Even if I'm talking to a privacy-conscious person, anyone else nearby with a smartphone with TikTok, Facecrook or Spotify installed instantly nullifies the privacy we had. I swear, every time I hear a crApple iBad ding with that familiar tone letting me know Siri just sent our conversation over to crApple servers because Siri thought I was addressing her, I just want to take the device and throw it as far as I can. But I can't. 
+
+The same for smartphone cameras. If anyone is using their smartphone near me, they probably have proprietary apps that can't be trusted with the camera permission. Those apps could use the camera in the background, watching whoever is in view at any time. My privacy in who I associate with is negated because someone is pointing a camera at me which is connected to a device that can't be trusted not to covertly send footage to private monopolies and, subsequently, the state. When someone sits across from me with their rear-facing smartphone camera pointed at me I just want to say "Hey, excuse me. Can you please not point a camera at me. I really don't want to be recorded and the proprietary apps on your phone might be doing that". But I'd probably be looked at like I have 2 heads if I actually said that to anyone. I don't do that because I don't believe it would do any good. Since everyone always has their phone with them, in effect I have zero privacy around others. It gets even worse if I visit somebody.
+
+## Home Surveillance
+If I go to someone's house or apartment, before I even step through the door, there may be a doorbell camera or other surveillance camera for home security. When I do step inside, there's a chance that they own a Scamazon Alexa or Goolag Home digital assistant. Even if they personally don't, if anyone in their same living space does, that nullifies privacy totally. It's persistent audio surveillance. So even if their phone and everyone else's phone in their home is secure and doesn't audio record its surroundings (virtually zero probability), I'm still being listened to continually by Big Brother. Yeah I'm in someone else's home and they should be free to arrange their home the way they wish, but setting up Internet of Stings devices potentially compromises every conversation nearby. Smart TVs also threaten privacy in the same way. Many of them have remotes that come with built-in microphones that listen all the time for voice commands.
+
+What happened to just being able to go into someone's home and have a private conversation? It would be nice to be with others without the awareness that Big Brother is listening. I should be able to go spend time with loved ones in privacy without giant corporations and the government knowing every detail of my visit, or at least being able to painlessly find out every detail. What can I do about it? It's not my home. Besides asking them to unplug those surveillance devices which provide them with convenience, there's nothing I can do. The only real choice I have is to not go to see them in the first place. What kind of choice is that? But again, it gets worse.
+
+## Retail Surveillance
+We're getting into the realm of absurdity and I realize that, but even if I become a hermit, unless I go off living in the woods or something, I have to buy the necessities and anywhere I do that I'm going to have absolutely zero privacy. Sure I can pay cash, not use rewards cards or give out any personal information, but every major retailer still has surveillance cameras whether it's a clothing store, supermarket or book store. It's hard to find stores without them. Some retailers even throw it in my face that I'm being recorded by showing a monitor with my picture on it. They have no shame about invading my privacy. They do it brazenly. And I don't care if they're a private company. I'm all for running your business how you want, but you shouldn't be invading the 99% of honest customers' privacy all the time just because of the 1% of thieves. So what if a thief gets away with stealing once in a while? I understand businesses have to protect their bottom line or risk being outcompeted, but consumers ought to create market pressure against businesses with surveillance cameras everywhere by shopping at places without them and making privacy an issue.
+
+Look, I just want to shop somewhere with reasonable prices without being on camera. Is that really too much to ask? Everywhere I shop I notice the cameras and all I can think is "I don't want to be recorded right now. I'm just trying to purchase goods, why is all this necessary?". Even if there were a thief, would the cameras actually stop them? It's not like people stop stealing just because there are cameras. If they don't get caught, nobody will check the recording anyway. It all seems so pointless and invasive. I never consented to any of it, but it's out of my immediate control to do anything.
+
+## Workplace Surveillance
+Workplace surveillance is another thing that grinds my gears. I can't really work remotely anywhere because all the remote jobs aren't free software friendly. I'm also barred from working almost all tech jobs since they're none free software friendly either. I don't want to confuse issues, so to make things clear: software freedom and surveillance are separate issues, but they are related. Proprietary software tends to have hidden surveillance features. So avoiding surveillance requires avoiding proprietary software. Doing that means my selection of work I can do is very limited. It's not impossible, it just makes everything so much harder. I do want work. I just don't want to be surveilled while I'm working. I don't care if a human supervisor watches me work. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. My problem is the automated computerized surveillance by proprietary software that I have no control over.
+
+I hate going to job interviews stipulating that I want a "privacy-respecting job" that doesn't require me to appear on surveillance cameras 90% of the time I'm there and I'm looked at like a crazy person, or met with suspicion and rejected by employers. Why is it so hard to understand that I just don't want to be recorded, monitored, surveilled, logged, tracked or added to proprietary corporate databases just to make a living? Seriously.
+
+## Education Surveillance
+I've already discussed surveillance in the education system extensively on this blog in the context of free software. In fact it was the reason this gemlog was started in the first place and the reason I dropped out and quit my job. Go to the very last page of my content to read more about it.
+
+## Online Surveillance
+Finally, I've made it to the section that I do exercise control over: online surveillance. Performing online surveillance of me is very difficult compared to most other people. I've insulated myself in free software. I live in the Free World and I use privacy-enhancing software. I'm certain I have more online privacy than 99% of internet users. If I didn't have this blog, I practically wouldn't exist online.
+
+The only big source of privacy leakage online for me is when people I know don't use privacy-respecting software. I can't control if other people choose to give in to big tech instead of living in the Free World. I can only persuade them to join me in freedom and privacy. If they choose to talk about me using proprietary privacy-disrespecting communications platforms, I can't stop them. If I cut off everyone who leaks information about me to big tech, I wouldn't have any relationships. It's in the category of things out of my immediate control. All I can do is kindly ask others not to mention me outside of the private, Free World. I know it's going to happen anyway and there's nothing I can do about it.
+
+In general, I don't give friends, family or strangers consent to take pictures or videos of me because I don't trust their devices. Most people's devices have lots of proprietary software on them. If I do consent, I kindly remind them not to upload it to proprietary social media platforms. This all might sound old-fashioned, but to me it's very reasonable. I see nothing wrong with asking other people to respect my privacy.
+
+# I'm Paranoid?
+People often say to me "Nick, you're paranoid". They ask why I care so much about privacy, implying I'm doing something I shouldn't be. These people are the "nothing to hide" people. They are clueless to what is going on around them in terms of mass surveillance and its effects. They don't understand that society is taking a very dark path and I'm doing my best to resist it while I still can. They just see someone who is extremely paranoid over nothing because they don't understand how mass surveillance is used to control and influence the world.
+
+On the contrary, pro-surveillance people are some of the most paranoid folks I've ever met. Those who think there needs to be surveillance cameras in every isle of the supermarket lest someone steals. Those who think we need a mass surveillance apparatus monitoring everyone at all times because of an extremely miniscule threat brought to attention by a few incidents that happened 20 years ago. An extreme overreaction to a perceived threat. That's the very definition of paranoia.
+
+I'm not downplaying 9/11 or saying terrorism isn't an issue, but taking away everyone's right to privacy just gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted. A better response would have been to mobilize for freedom and privacy since governments always try to justify expanding their power in times of crisis. It usually works by the way because people are scared and in need of reassurance. Terrorism was never that big of a threat and more surveillance wouldn't prevent it anyway. It's security theater. Mass surveillance doesn't prevent terrorism. It just makes it easier for the government to get dirt on protestors, journalists, dissidents and whistleblowers. For that reason, mass surveillance poses more of a threat to democracy than terrorism ever has.
+
+# Mourning Privacy
+What all this brings me to is a sense of loss and mourning what once was. Older people lived in an age without mass surveillance. I sometimes wish I were born in that era, where people had real privacy. I could've walked down the street without being recorded by a doorbell camera. Private conversations with others would not only have been practical, they would've been the norm. I could've gone to a person's home and it wouldn't have been bugged with half a dozen Internet of Stings devices. I could've gone to the store without having dozens of cameras tracking my facial expression and the way I walk and who I'm with. I could've finished college and gotten my degree and a decent privacy-respecting job since, back then, all jobs were privacy-respecting. I could've used the internet before it was monopolized by big tech, before every packet sent over the wire was scooped up and analyzed. I miss it, even though I never lived during that time. I don't wish for everything to go back to how it was. I just want the privacy back.
+
+Sometimes I think the loss of privacy, the mass surveillance is just a bad dream or some unfunny joke, that I'm going to wake up in my bed one day and have privacy again. But every morning I wake up and I still live in a surveillance state. It would be nice to live in a world with real privacy again. I don't know if I'll ever live to see it happen. All I know is I'm going to do my best to nudge the world in the direction of more privacy and less surveillance. I hope you'll join me in that struggle, before it's too late.
diff --git a/content/post/my-career-path.md b/content/post/my-career-path.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..25e5323
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/my-career-path.md
@@ -0,0 +1,233 @@
+---
+title: "My Career Path"
+date: 2021-06-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Coming Full Circle
+It feels good to return to the topic that started this blog in the first place: my career path. I want to more thoroughly discuss my thoughts on my career and where I'm headed. But before I talk about where I'm headed, I first have to reflect on where I began.
+
+# The History
+## Education
+From the beginning of my education to the point that I dropped out, I never had trouble making the grade. I did well in primary school, middle school, high school, community college and university.
+
+Unlike other students who were crippled with indecisiveness about what to study, I was fortunate enough to know exactly what I wanted to major in: computer science. It wasn't a hard decision. I was interested in computers. I knew I'd be able to graduate if I put in the work. And I knew there were many career options and jobs available in the field. I had other interests such as philosophy, mathematics and physics but computer science seemed to offer the most job options, so I chose it instead.
+
+## Work
+After I started attending SIUe, I found a job working for the IT department there. It wasn't really a "career" job. It just gave me an income while studying. It was convenient because it was on campus and I was able to get work done during downtime. I wouldn't have been able to work off campus and study at the same time. It would have been too much. So it really was a perfect job for my circumstances.
+
+## Unraveling
+Career-wise, my life was going pretty smoothly. The moment that changed was when my coworker accidentally red-pilled me by mentioning a name: Richard Stallman. From there, I did some research, learned about free software, became privy to the ethics of computing, and the rest is history. You can read about the rest in the very first posts of my blog:
+
+[Inception - Rejecting Discord, Draw.io and Visual Studio](../../../../2020/03/30/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio)
+[Rejecting Discord and Google Colab](../../../../2020/03/30/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab)
+[Rejecting Visual Studio](../../../../2020/04/30/rejecting-visual-studio)
+[The Tipping Point - Rejecting Windows, Zoom, Lockdown Browser and The Lockdown Monitor](../../../../2020/03/30/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor)
+
+In short, it was causing me a lot of stress trying to avoid proprietary software while getting my degree. When Covid hit, it was a major catalyst for proprietary software. Using proprietary software became mandatory for remote test-taking. It dawned on me that there would be no way for me to complete my computer science degree, or any degree for that matter, in freedom even after talking with professors and the department chair about the issue.
+
+Even without Covid, which at the time had no end in sight, there would be no guarantee that I could complete mandatory classes in freedom, something I grew increasingly opposed to making compromises on. I was totally demoralized having put so much effort into my classes just to realize I wouldn't be able to pass them without installing multiple forms of malware on my computer to take tests. I wasn't going to retake classes every time a freedom issue got in the way. The situation became too much. It was unsustainable, so I dropped out and also had to quit my job for similar reasons:
+
+[Why I Left ITS](../../../../2020/07/02/why-i-left-its/)
+
+So that's the overview. It has been over a year and some months since all that took place and since I decided to blog about it. If you're a long-time reader, you've already read about it and you're probably wondering what I've been doing since then. So the next section will be new information.
+
+# What I've Been Up To
+## Blogging
+Since I dropped out, I've obviously been writing this blog for one thing. Putting things in writing helps me tremendously in organizing my thoughts. Also the occasional feedback I get from others helps. I'm very happy I started this blog and I have no plans to ever stop writing on it. So long as I have thoughts to think I'll have posts to publish.
+
+In terms of career advancement, this blog is a step forward. I can put it on my resumé. It demonstrates my critical thinking and my writing abilities, both desirable qualities for employers. It highlights my focus on computer privacy, security and ethics. And finally, it represents my technical skills through the code I've written and published on git.nicksphere.ch. More than anything else, I'd say it shows my writing ability though.
+
+## Working
+To pay my bills, I've been working low wage entry-level positions that don't serve to advance my career in any way. It's all I've been able to get so far. I'm not going to sugar coat it. It sucks, but I've gained immense respect for the people who work those jobs. Someone has to do them and there's no silver lining to it. They work their asses off to earn starvation wages and barely stay afloat financially speaking. They ought to be paid more.
+
+Nevertheless I feel very out of place working low wage entry-level positions, but not out of a sense of superiority to people who do those jobs or entitlement that I "deserve" a better job. As I said I have immense respect for low-income earners. I just mean most low-income earners aren't there because they dropped out of college because of ethics and refuse to work at evilcorp. It's a strange position to be in and there's just not much help out there for people with my problem.
+
+## Looking For Internships
+I've tried applying for free software internships, but no luck so far. The only place I'm certain I wouldn't have any freedom issues is the granddaddy organization of the free software movement, the FSF. I haven't had any luck there yet either. According to the statistics I've read, less than 5% of applicants get approved for many of the free software internships. There's just not as much money and positions available in free software as there is in proprietary software. A lot of internships are targeted towards minorities and being a straight, white male doesn't help. A lot of them are exclusive to students, which I am no longer.
+
+Something that has been discouraging is seeing so-called "open source" internships use proprietary software for project development and communication. It makes no sense to use Goolag docs, Slack and Github for project development when you're developing free software. User freedom matters, but what about developer freedom? Don't developers deserve freedom too? Many of the sites for free software internships require proprietary Javascript to apply and they include Goolag Analytics, which goes to show how seriously they're taking the whole freedom thing. 
+
+## Interacting with Free Software Communities
+Since dropping out, I've communicated in various free software communities.
+
+### Libreplanet
+Around this time last year, I wrote about my story in the Libreplanet mailing list:
+
+[Mailing List](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2020-06/msg00000.html)
+
+I got a lot of good feedback, advice and constructive criticism there.
+
+### Libreboot / OSboot
+I got the Colemak keyboard layout supported in osboot.
+
+OSboot is one of my favorite free software projects. You can see a list of all the mirrors here:
+
+[OSboot Mirrors](https://osboot.org/download.html)
+
+### Gemini
+Ever since supporting the Gemini protocol on my blog, I've interacted with fellow geminauts on the geminispace. I've shared my blog around and read some of what others put on there. It has grown a lot since its inception. I'll probably do another post about Gemini since I really prefer it over the web.
+
+I've also had casual correspondence with various other free software projects and people, but those are the main ones. None of this necessarily helps my career very much. It would definitely be more helpful for me to actively contribute to free software projects out there, but finding the motivation has been extremely challenging which leads me into why that is.
+
+# Motivation
+This post wouldn't be complete without a section dedicated to motivation. It's an important thing to consider for my career. I've been able to identify a few factors that motivate me.
+
+## Motivating Forces
+When I ask myself what motivated me to do well in school, this is what comes to mind:
+* Wanting to pass my classes so I didn't fail and have to retake them and go into debt
+* Wanting better career options so I didn't have to work long hours at crummy jobs
+* Wanting to meet expectations from family and peers
+* Wanting to gain knowledge and skills
+
+When I ask myself what motivates me to work, here's what I think of:
+* Wanting to be financially independent so I have more personal freedom and mobility
+* Wanting to get accustomed to working for more important career jobs
+* Wanting to gain knowledge and skills
+* Wanting to do good for the world
+
+When I ask myself what motivates me to write, this is what occurs to me:
+* Wanting others to benefit from my thoughts, opinions and experiences
+* Wanting to express myself clearly
+* Wanting to promote my view of the world
+
+## Conclusions Based on My Motivators
+### It Makes Sense That I Dropped Out
+From a motivational standpoint, it makes sense that I dropped out. Even had I chosen to suspend my principles for another year to graduate, I would've likely had to suspend them for years more working a proprietary software job before maybe getting the chance to atone for my sins by working with free software. But then again there would be no guarantee it would play out like that. I may just never get a free software job. Plus that's a very slippery slope. How much is too much giving in to proprietary software? Working with it for 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Where does one draw the line?
+
+Why go in debt and work hard to get a degree that may not even help me get a career I actually want? And also enter the slippery slope of giving up my principles to do it? A big part of what motivated me was advancing my career. That's the main reason most people go to college. Understandably I was demotivated when I realized it wouldn't necessarily help with getting a career I want anyway.
+
+### Free Software Contributions Mostly Don't Motivate Me
+Reflecting on contributing to free software projects, there are a few reasons I suspect I haven't been able to find motivation for that thus far. There's no question contributing to ethical free software does good for the world. There's lots of free software out there that needs maintained and supported. But it doesn't necessarily get me a career where I can support myself financially and that's really important for me right now.
+
+I don't have my motivation fully figured out yet. What I do know is there's either some key motivators missing for me when it comes to contributing to free software or there's some other reason preventing me from doing it. Something I don't fully grasp blocks me from putting in the effort to advancing my career through contributing to free software projects. I just can't bring myself to make the effort. Maybe that will change in the future. I don't know.
+
+### I'm Highly Motivated to Write This Blog
+I've spent over a year trying and failing to find a way to make money with free software. Working entry level, low-wage, non-career jobs to sustain myself meanwhile sucks. I'm motivated by the desire to not have to do that.
+
+Writing this blog isn't definitively moving me more toward a career either, but it's motivating in ways that contributing to free software isn't. For instance I have a very strong motivation to share my opinions with the world, it's a good outlet for self-expression and and it helps me clarify my thoughts.
+
+### I Need Certain Things Out of My Career
+So the conclusion I've come to out of thinking about what motivates me is this: Whatever career path I pursue from here, it needs to be backed by several strong motivating factors. I strongly prefer it to enable me to do good in the world. At a minimum, it needs to be ethically neutral. No promoting or tacitly condoning proprietary softare. I'd rather be janitor than have any high-paying career at evilcorp. It must help me gain more knowledge and skills, preferably marketable skills. Ideally I can put it on my resumé to further improve career prospects.
+
+I realize that the avoiding proprietary software requirement and doing good in the world preference are going to be the most limiting factors in my career search. Most jobs have at least some aspects that are ethically questionable. I'll have to carefully consider those and research before pursuing the career path so I don't waste my time/money and get discouraged again.
+
+The last thing I want is to put as much effort as I did into computer science into something else and then suddenly learn about some ethical lines I'm unwilling to cross that totally extinguish my efforts. For this reason I think it's best that I search for career options that allow a high degree of personal freedom in the work. The more aspects of the work I have control over, the more I can make sure I'm not crossing any ethical boundaries.
+
+In summary, I've reviewed the path I've taken so far in my career. I've talked about what I need to do in the future to make sure I don't end up in the same situation I am now not being able to earn money with my knowledge and skills. I've outlined my major motivators and what I need out of a career. I've done a lot of important self-reflection which brings me to the next section of this post: what I'm going to do from here on out career-wise.
+
+# Future Career Plans
+Based on the self-reflection I've done while writing this post and the conclusions arrived at, I'm going to outline a plan for advancing my career going forward. It's clear to me after over a year of not making significant progress in my career that I definitely need a plan and casual inconsistent efforts won't cut it.
+
+## Apply For Internships
+The first part of my plan is applying for more internships. So far I've just been looking for computing-related internships. Given that I refuse to use non-free software, my choices are extremely limited.
+
+I need to broaden the scope of my search and consider other career options that fall within my interests. I have an Associate of Science degree and a minor in Mathematics. I also have this blog and some code samples on git.nicksphere.ch to show to potential employers. So it's not as if I'm locked into applying for computer-related internships. The worst thing that can happen is I get rejected and apply somewhere else. The best that can happen is I get hired and advance my career.
+
+## Network
+To get a better idea of potential career paths, I should network with people who already work in careers I'm interested in. It would help me get an idea whether that's something I really want to do, what ethical concerns there might be and it could help me get my foot in the door. 
+
+## Avoid Formal Education
+If I need to learn something for a career, I'm confident in my ability to teach myself. I know how to read textbooks. I don't need to pay for an expensive human text-to-speech engine. I'd like to avoid the expenses.
+
+Also, I don't want to worry about whether I'll be able to finish without using non-free software since education has been so infected by it. So has practically every job, but adding on formal education is just going to make avoiding it more difficult and runs the risk of demoralizing me again.
+
+If I could somehow negotiate the software I'd use before earning a degree so that I wouldn't have to use any non-free software, then formal education would become more viable even if it wouldn't lead directly to a career. Having a degree still means something, undeniably. I just don't see this scenario as being very likely to succeed. It just depends on how flexible the education is and how much they'd be willing to work with me on it.
+
+## Earn Certifications
+A good alternative to going back to college would be acquiring certifications. Again, I don't want the extra expenses of paying for certifications. But if I got a paid internship or even just had the money, I would definitely look into them since they would be a way of proving skills without expensive formal education.
+
+Another option is getting my employer to sponsor the certification. This could be viable especially if the certification is relevant to that career field. Worst case scenario, they refuse to sponsor it. Best case, I get a free certification.
+
+## Prioritize Local Jobs Over Remote
+Since I refuse to use non-free software, it would be better for me to get a local job instead of a remote job. Non-free software is much more likely to be an issue at a remote job, especially for things like communication.
+
+## Prioritize Small Businesses and Non-Profits
+It will be much easier to avoid proprietary software and other ethical problems working for small businesses where I might can retain some degree of control over some aspects of the work versus at a large corporation where there's already well-established ways of doing things that aren't going to change. Also unless I'm mistaken non-profits tend to be more ethical to work for than for-profit organizations.
+
+## Keep Blogging
+While blogging hasn't helped me get an internship yet, it does help me organize my thoughts. It has helped me put more thought into my career plan than I otherwise would have. So I'm going to keep doing it. 
+
+## Consider Self-Employment
+Being self-employed would give me more freedom in my work. It would allow me to use the free software tools I want to use rather than being commanded to use proprietary garbage by an employer. It would also allow me to do some actual good. Perhaps I could find a niche that there is demand for but hasn't been occupied yet.
+
+It wouldn't be easy, but it might be a better path to advancing my career than anything else. I could try different things and if I fail I've only wasted my time. I'm not a very business-oriented person, but I could learn business skills which may help me succeed on my own.
+
+## Volunteer
+While volunteering isn't going to get me a career job instantly, it could help me get my foot in the door. I can put it on my resumé. It would help with networking and meeting likeminded people. I would get work experience. And I would be doing good for the world meanwhile. So it's another solid choice for advancing my career.
+
+# Managing My Expectations
+With that, I have some solid ideas to try. The plan is to try many things simultaneously to maximize my chance of success. I need to apply for internships while networking while looking for local job opportunities while volunteering and looking into self-employment. It's a lot of work but it beats the hell out of making casual, inconsistent efforts and hoping something floats my way without a plan.
+
+I know just because I have all these ideas doesn't mean I'll succeed. There are infinite ways I could fail, so my expectations aren't high. But I'm motivated by the fact that my plan is what I've got to work with. I mean there's no other career paths that I consider worth pursuing.
+
+I know this isn't the path most people choose and in fact many people consider what I'm doing to be foolish, but if I'm going to be doing something I hate for a job, I'd rather earn low wages mopping floors and cleaning toilets and stand by my principles rather than compromise them being a bootlicking corporate robot.
+
+# Responding to Criticism
+## Constructive Versus Unconstructive
+Speaking of foolish decisions, I'd like to address some of the criticism I've received over my decision to drop out, quit my job and pursue a career in this way. I've gotten plenty of criticism from students, peers, professors and family, some constructive, some unconstructive.
+
+I understand that writing about my life online opens me open to criticism. I have to expect that. But not all criticism is equal. I generally ignore unconstructive criticism. There's a difference between wanting to give constructive advice to help and just wanting to hurt someone. I ignore the latter. Luckily almost all the feedback I've gotten has been constructive.
+
+## Respectable Critiques
+### Critique 1
+The line of criticism I've received that I consider respectable and worth responding to goes like this:
+
+> "While you've avoided being a victim of proprietary software in the context of your university/job, you're making yourself a victim of larger society in other ways."
+
+### Response
+This is a true statement. Because of my refusal to give up my software freedom, I've had to work crummy jobs over the past year. I'd have more overall personal freedom if I gave up my software freedom, no doubt. I'd have more money. A whole world of career options would open up. I could always get separate devices for work and school to limit the negative effects of proprietary software in my life. I could probably eliminate the negatives of using proprietary software in my own life to the point of being benign. So why don't I?
+
+Perhaps it's my fault that I repeatedly framed my dropping out as an issue of "preserving my freedom". It makes sense that I got such a criticism because, as I said, I'd have more personal freedom overall by giving up my software freedom in the contexts of work and school. But in truth, my freedom is the minor point.
+
+The larger point for me is not being an enabler of injustice, to the degree that I can avoid it. By giving in to the proprietary software in school and work, I make it harder for others to say no too. I become part of the problem. I make the world a worse place. And I don't want to do that.
+
+### Critique 2
+Now there's a really good follow up criticism to this response that I don't think I've heard yet, but it feels natural to make:
+
+> "You've avoided being an enabler of proprietary software in the context of your university/job, but almost all jobs have unethical components. Fast food workers serve unhealthy food. Clothing stores use sweatshops. You're just avoiding one unethical task in favor of doing another."
+
+### Response
+I also have respect for this criticism. I do need money and I do need a job. I have to work somewhere and almost every workplace has some at least ethically questionable practices. But not all workplaces are equal.
+
+Some workplaces are so morally hazardous that it would be more moral not to work, given the choice between working there and not working at all. This assumes that not working is actually an option. In countries with a poor to nonexistent social safety net, refusing to work might mean extreme poverty or death in which case refusing to work isn't really an option if you want to live.
+
+On the other extreme are workplaces that are perfect examples of the right way to do business. They contribute positively to society causing minimal harm.
+
+To pretend that these two categories are morally equivalent just because a morally perfect workplace doesn't exist is absurd. That's like not seeing the moral difference between a first-time drug offender and a serial killer because "they're both criminals". It's extreme black and white thinking and the world just isn't that black and white.
+
+Now for me personally, I'm certain the low wage jobs I've been working over the past year are morally superior to whatever evilcorp I'd be working at if I gave up my software freedom for an easy career path. For that reason I'm going to continue working low wage jobs until I find something that both pays better and does good for the world.
+
+### Critique 3
+Another criticism I've received that's worth consideration is:
+
+> "Wouldn't you be able to do more good in the world by giving in to proprietary software temporarily just to get your degree and some experience, thereby earning more professional respect, connections and experience? Wouldn't the good from that cancel out the temporary evil?"
+
+### Response
+I respect this argument because there are theoretical cases where arguments of similar form are correct. For instance, if I enable proprietary Javascript in my browser so I can access a job search site that subsequently gets me a job doing a lot of good with free software. But that's a theoretical example. In practical reality, there's a lot of problems with thinking that way.
+
+For one, it's a slippery slope. How much are you willing to give in before you finally put your foot down? If you don't draw the line somewhere, then you don't care too much about your principles. If you're not willing to make sacrifices for them, then you're as good practically speaking as someone who has no ethical principles at all. The only difference is you'll try to do good as long as it doesn't cause you any major inconveniences. But in the real world, doing the right thing is often personally inconvenient. History has countless proofs of that.
+
+For two, even if you don't fall prey to the slippery slope, there's still the problem of how certain you are that this temporary evil will lead to more good later on. In my case, finishing my education and getting a degree doesn't guarantee a free software job. Even if I gained experience working with proprietary software for a few years, it wouldn't guarantee a free software job. And even if it did, the work I did with proprietary software may prove far more impactful in a negative sense than the work I do with free software. There are just too many unknowns to justify the temporary evil.
+
+### Critique 4
+The final critique which I have less respect for than the other 3, but that I still feel deserves addressing because of how often I hear it goes like this:
+
+> "You're only 1 person. Even if you succeed in your 'moral crusade' and you end up with a good career out of it, it won't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Proprietary software will still dominate. So you might as well just give up your principles and enjoy the time you have."
+
+### Response
+I have the least respect for this argument because it's so easily refuted. It's partly just a question of values. I want to make the world a better place. People who say this kind of thing generally don't care about that as much which is fine. If they really don't care then they don't. But since I do, it makes no sense to just give up for at least 2 reasons.
+
+The first reason is that it's impossible to know for sure that individual actions won't make a big difference. Most of the time individual actions don't cause any major changes. But occasionally they do. Just look at Greta Thunberg.
+
+Her claim to fame was skipping school sitting alone outside the Swedish parliament. She has inspired millions and is now a household name. But it didn't have be that way. One can easily imagine it going the other way. Maybe in an alternate universe no one took notice, she never became famous and the strikes inspired by her never happened. 
+
+The only way to guarantee failure, in most important contexts, is by not trying at all. Therefore as long as there's any chance at all, one must try.
+
+The second reason it's a bad argument is because even if we assume failure is inevitable, that doesn't mean it can't be postponed. Keeping with the theme of the climate, even if we're past the point of no return and humanity is doomed to extinction, it's still possible to delay the worst effects of climate change, perhaps even for decades. That's absolutely worth doing. It's no different with any other social issue including my pet cause, free software.
+
+# Conclusion
+Those were the main criticisms I wanted to address. But now that I've outlined a career plan and justified it to myself, all that's left is the execution.
+
+To be realistic, I don't estimate very high chances of success. I've never had to be very self-motivated and a plan is only as good as the follow through. So I'm glad I made a plan and I have honest intentions to do it, but it's not going to be easy and there's a good chance of failure. I'll just have to give it a few months of effort and reassess my situation.
+
+Anyway, this post has been a lot about me and I usually don't talk about myself this much on my blog. So if you made it this far, thank you for reading and I hope you found something valuable out of it.
diff --git a/content/post/networked-ev-charging-stations.md b/content/post/networked-ev-charging-stations.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1786bfe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/networked-ev-charging-stations.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Networked EV Charging Stations"
+date: 2020-09-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Eventually I want to write a separate post on why mass surveillance is stupid, dangerous, and incompatible with democracy. For those that read my blog, I'm probably preaching to the choir though. I'm going to write the rest of this post assuming the reader already understands why mass surveillance is bad, or at least sees how it could be. If you don't understand why massive government surveillance is a problem, you think that "privacy is dead", or "I have nothing to hide" comes to mind, you should do more research on mass surveillance before continuing. With that, I'll continue.
+
+# Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
+I want to quickly cover some basics about EV charging stations for those who don't know. There are two types of EV charging stations: networked and non-networked. The networked ones require you to sign up on the web with your real name, credit card information, address, and car make and model. You have to agree to the terms of service and privacy policy. After signing up, you receive a swipe card in the mail. Because you have to swipe an ID card to use networked charging stations, the network (Chargepoint) knows who you are, where you charged your car, when, and for how long. Non-networked charging stations don't require you to use an ID card, so they can't collect any personalized data on you.
+
+# Gas Stations
+EV charging stations are worse for your privacy than gas stations. With gas stations, you can pay anonymously in cash. No form of ID is necessary. While you can pay with a credit card, it's not necessary. EV charging stations don't allow you to pay in cash. At a minimum, there is a record of your credit card transaction to the charging network. Also, due to the swipe card you have to use for the charging station, every single charge is tied to your real identity. This means the network (Chargepoint) creates an extensive dossier on everywhere you've been and sells that information to data brokers. You must agree to all this or you can't even use the charging station. You can still charge your electric vehicle at home or at non-networked charging stations, but non-networked stations are far less common than networked ones. So if your EV doesn't have much range or you are in a rural area, you'll definitely be going out of your way to avoid the networked stations. The only way around this is reverting back to using a gas station, if you have a hybrid car. If you have a fully electric vehicle, then you're just out of luck.
+
+# The Infrastructure of Surveillance
+The bad news is the worst is still yet to come. There's not a huge opposition to networked charging stations and the issue is even lesser known than that of mass surveillance. And in the United States, if EVs are the way of the future and demand increases for them, there will need to be many more charging stations than there are now. This is bad because it's almost certain that these new charging stations are going to be proprietary and networked, selling customer data. It will become increasingly difficult to resist the privacy invasion of our location data once the infrastructure is already in place. What are you going to do, not charge your car? Once infrastructure is already paid for, there needs to be a very strong incentive to change it. The best course of action now is to oppose the networked charging stations before they are deployed and avoid using them, even if it's inconvenient. That's because most of the charging stations that are going to be deployed have not yet been deployed. So, there's still time to stop the surveillance infrastructure before it expands.
+
+## How to Fight Back
+If your school or workplace wants to install a networked charging station, tell them you oppose this decision and would instead be in favor of a more privacy-respecting option such as a non-networked station. If you own an EV yourself, tell them that you will refuse to use the networked charging station because you don't want to encourage proprietary surveillance infrastructure. You could also stick flyers on the networked charging stations calling for EV drivers not to use the networked stations, or at least to become informed about the problem and organize. Chargepoint puts out their own propoganda[1] trying to spin the surveillance off as a good thing, a myth we must dispel. The fact is all of the items on their list are doable with non-networked charging stations running free software. If you want analytics or access controls, you could imagine a cryptographic system that uses secure private tokens to protect EV driver privacy while also making analytics possible without any sign up or extra hassle to the driver. Proprietary charging station phone apps could also be avoided and replaced with free software alternatives.
+
+Vulnerabilities[2] in networked charging stations have been found in the past. As everyone should know, any time there is a database containing personal data, it becomes the target of hackers. The only way to completely prevent data from being stolen or leaked in the long run is by not collecting the data in the first place. Luckily with EV charging stations, storing location data is completely unnecessary. With enough public pressure we can just do away with it entirely. We just have to show that privacy is the priority.
+
+# SIUe
+When I was attending SIUe, I emailed the parking services staff in October of 2019 about the privacy concerns I had about the new Chargepoint stations that were being installed and encouraged them to install a non-networked station instead. The reply explained that while they understood my concerns, Chargepoint is what all the public universities in Illinois are using and they determined that it would be in the best interest of their constituents to install it. I was not able to change their decision, but I got the parking services staff to at least think about the issue because a well thought-out critique demands a well thought-out response. I don't want to see the United States turning into a nightmarish big brother surveillance hellscape where privacy is impossible and the government has such strong surveillance capability on everyone that it's "turnkey tyranny", as Snowden would say. Networked charging stations are one step closer to that bleak reality. Don't doubt for a second that the government can access EV charging station location data from networked charging stations. They absolutely can. Collecting the locations on millions of law-abiding citizens is a capability no government or private entity should be allowed have. Of course companies and governments get the same location data through smartphones anyway, but that must end too. One injustice doesn't justify another. That just means we have more work to do.
+
+# National Security and Privacy
+In a democracy, the people have the power to self-govern. Democracy is incompatible with mass government surveillance in the long term. What you have to realize is mass corporate surveillance is mass government surveillance. In the United States, the federal government has the authority to force companies to turn over customer data and then not tell customers about it. The data collection and analysis often happens automatically. It is impossible to meaningfully oppose a government that has near omniscience about the entire population. All it takes is one competent, evil politician to convert a heavily surveilled democracy into a dictatorship. Obviously, networked charging stations aren't going to do that on their own. But they are a stepping stone on a path whose destination is nigh-impossible to pull back from. Worse, foreign governments can purchase and use this location information on high-profile individuals driving electric vehicles to gain influence. Massive data collection of Americans' location is not only incompatible with American democracy by giving government far too much power (knowledge is power), but it's also a national security threat. The very existence of a database with real-time location data points on millions of Americans is a national security threat because foreign governments and hackers will find a way to get access. The only full solution is to make sure the data is never collected in the first place, by opposing networked charging stations and organizing and informing EV drivers around the issue.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.chargepoint.com/blog/7-reasons-why-non-networked-charging-non-starter/](https://www.chargepoint.com/blog/7-reasons-why-non-networked-charging-non-starter/)
+[2: https://web.archive.org/web/20201108115340id_/https://amatas.com/news/view/schneider-electric-s-vehicle-charging-station-could-be-hacked](https://web.archive.org/web/20201108115340id_/https://amatas.com/news/view/schneider-electric-s-vehicle-charging-station-could-be-hacked)
diff --git a/content/post/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md b/content/post/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..74e31ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+title: "Newcomb's Paradox Resolved"
+date: 2020-11-28T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Background
+I "solved" Newcomb's Paradox[1] about 3 years ago if I remember right. I use solved in quotes because you don't really "solve" a paradox. Paradoxes only seem to be contradictory at first glance. But, upon further inspection, they lead you to a new understanding of the problem where the paradox disappears. In other words, paradoxes arise out of a flawed or incomplete perspective. Newcomb's paradox in particular arises out of a misunderstanding of free will[2].
+
+# Telescoping Method
+Before I give away the "solution" to Newcomb's Paradox, I want to talk about my method for solving philosophical problems in general. I call it the telescoping method. When I am confronted with a philosophical problem, the first thing I do is try to understand the essence of the problem. To do that, I look at which abstractions the problem uses. I break them down and down until the problem makes sense. Then, one by one, I build up the abstractions again so I can explain in words what the solution is. I've found it to be very effective for philosophy. I'll use Newcomb's Paradox to show how it works.
+
+# Newcomb's Paradox
+## The Problem
+Here's the problem from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0[3]):
+
+> There is an infallible predictor, a player, and two boxes designated A and B. The player is given a choice between taking only box B, or taking both boxes A and B. The player knows the following:
+> Box A is clear, and always contains a visible $1,000.
+> Box B is opaque, and its content has already been set by the predictor: If the predictor has predicted the player will take both boxes A and B, then box B contains nothing. If the predictor has predicted that the player will take only box B, then box B contains $1,000,000.
+> 
+> 
+> The player does not know what the predictor predicted or what box B contains while making the choice.
+
+## The Paradox
+Let's make it clear why this situation is a paradox before we attempt to resolve it. We are going to assume that the player is trying to maximize their profits. There are 2 strategies from game theory[4] that you can apply to Newcomb's Paradox.
+
+The first is the expected utility hypothesis[5]. It says you should take only box B. Its reasoning goes like this: Imagine you watched 1,000 philosophers play. Philosophers are split 50/50 on the issue, so about 500 would pick only box B, winning $1,000,000 and about 500 would pick both boxes, winning $1000. From a statistical standpoint, it's obvious you should pick box B.
+
+The second is the strategic dominance principle[6]. It says you should take boxes A and B. Its reasoning goes like this: After the predictor has made its prediction and either put the $1,000,000 in box B or not, it can't change the amounts in the boxes. Therefore, choosing both boxes will always yield $1000 more than choosing only box B. You should take both boxes.
+
+At first glance, both of these principles seem very compelling. It's paradoxical because they offer conflicting advice. How can we resolve this?
+
+## Abstractions
+### The Infallible Predictor
+As I suggested in the "telescoping method", we're going to break down the abstractions and make the problem more concrete. First, let's take note of the infallible predictor. Philosophically speaking, infallible predictors are really controversial. But we actually don't need an infallible predictor at all. Using basic algebra:
+
+> Let p be the probability that the predictor is correct. Then:
+> 1000000p is the expected value if you choose only box B.
+> 1000000(1-p) + 1000 is the expected value if you choose both boxes.
+> 
+> 1000000p > 1000000(1-p) + 1000
+> -> 1000p > 1000(1-p) + 1
+> -> 1000p > 1000 - 1000p + 1
+> -> 2000p > 1001
+> -> p > 0.5005
+> 
+> Therefore the expected value if you choose only box B is greater than the expected value if you choose both boxes so long as the predictor is over 50.05% accurate, slightly better than a coin toss.
+
+An AI system that can predict slightly better than a fair coin toss could create the Newcomb Paradox. Given what AI is already capable of, this is a realistic scenario. It also shows that the infallible predictor isn't the root cause of the paradox.
+
+### Intent
+If it's not the infallible predictor causing the paradox, could the essence of the paradox have something to do with your intent? Newcomb's Paradox doesn't tell us that the predictor makes its prediction based on your intent. All it tells us is that the predictor is infallible. Therefore intent is irrelevant.
+
+Even if your sincere intention is to pick only box B before the predictor makes its prediction, yet you change your mind and choose both boxes in the after prediction stage, the predictor will still correctly predict your choice and you will only win $1000.
+
+### Choice
+We already examined the infallibility of the predictor and the player intent abstractions. They don't seem to cause the paradox. Perhaps the abstraction of choice is the problem? Newcomb's Paradox assumes it makes sense to talk about the player making a "choice" between 2 boxes and 1 box. But language to describe making a choice between several options is used in plenty of game theory problems. Even though I have shown that free will is incoherent[7], using what I call "the language of free will" doesn't seem to be an issue for other game theory problems. Why then would it be especially problematic in Newcomb's Paradox? Allow me to defer to some dialogue between Neo and The Oracle from The Matrix[8]:
+
+> Oracle: Candy?
+> Neo: Do you already know if I'm going to take it?
+> Oracle: Wouldn't be much of an oracle if I didn't.
+> Neo: But if you already know, how could I make a choice?
+> Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make the choice. You've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it.
+
+Just replace Neo with the player and the Oracle with the predictor and it's the same concept. It seems we have found the essence of the problem. Free will is our leaky abstraction. The problem is the player can't really make a choice because, from the predictor's perspective, it has already been made. This leak can be ignored in most situations, but not with Newcomb's Paradox. The paradox arises because we use language of free will. Talking as if others are free agents is built right into language. So what can we say about Newcomb's Paradox?
+
+## The "Solution"
+TLDR; choose only box B.
+
+Long answer: There is a very subtle contradiction in the definition of Newcomb's Paradox. Can you spot it? It says "The player does not know what the predictor predicted or what box B contains while making the choice". The hidden assumption there is that the "choice point" is after the predictor's prediction. This is impossible. The abstraction of choice collapses after the predictor has made the prediction. If we have to pick a point in time where it still makes any sense to talk about a "choice" being made, it would have to be before the predictor made the prediction. The strategic dominance principle is inherently tied to the idea of the player having a free choice after the predictor made the prediction. Therefore, it can't be the solution.
+
+Meanwhile taking only box B is supported by mathematical expected value, which doesn't rely on free choice being available after the prediction. It just says "If you take only box B, you can expect $1,000,000. If you take both boxes, you can expect $1,000". There's no notion of free will there. It's a purely statistical argument. The strategic dominance principle only seems appealing because of the strong intuition of having a free choice after the predictor has made the prediction. While retrocausality[9] doesn't actually occur in Newcomb's Paradox, it's not a bad mental model for thinking about the problem. Since the predictor is infallible, it has effective retrocausality. What the predictor did in the past is based on the box it already knows you're going to take. There's no real paradox, you just can't outwit the predictor even though your intuitions tell you that you "feel free".
+
+You might think it doesn't make sense to prescribe players the strategy of choosing box B only, since they have "already made the choice" whether or not to take only box B. But, consider that by the same token, we have "already made the choice" whether or not to prescribe the player the strategy to take box B. So, it is equally coherent for us to prescribe the player to take box B as it is for the player to actually take box B. Saying there's no point in prescribing the player a course of action is akin to saying you'll just stay in bed all day since you have no free will. The "choice" to do nothing is also not of your own free will. In other words, you're not escaping your lack of free will by doing nothing. We aren't escaping the lack of the player's free will by not prescribing them a best course of action as we don't have free will either. So, there's no reason not to tell the player to take only box B.
+
+# Closing
+Some of the points I've written down in this post come from my own intuition. I couldn't write a single methodology for how I come up with it all. In philosophy, it's hard to define a single methodology that can solve problems since each problem is unique and touches on many different things. Maybe some day someone will come up with an algorithm for doing philosophy. Although that would be equivalent to finding an algorithm for truth[10], so no one would be able to agree that it actually worked.
+
+Nonetheless, the telescoping method is good for getting you on the right track. It can also lead you down rabbit holes. I would caution that you don't try to break down abstractions more than necessary. There's a reason we have abstractions. They make it easier to think. Once you start breaking them down, the conceptual complexity increases. For example, if instead of talking about boxes I started talking about the billions of atoms that make up the boxes, that just makes it harder to think about the problem. And it doesn't add clarity. Be careful not to do that unnecessarily.
+
+Finally, in these dense philosophical essays, I welcome criticism[11]. About half of philosophers think you should take both boxes, so don't get the impression that my opinion is the only one. If you think I'm wrong about the paradox, I'd love to get feedback. As always, thanks for reading and feel free to send a donation[12] if you find my posts valuable.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox)
+[2: /2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
+[3: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Game_theory](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Game_theory)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesis](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesis)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Strategic_dominance](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Strategic_dominance)
+[7: /2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/The_Matrix](https://wikiless.org/wiki/The_Matrix)
+[9: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Retrocausality](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Retrocausality)
+[10: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=leX541Dr2rU](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=leX541Dr2rU)
+[11: mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch](mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch)
+[12: /about](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/on-blockchain.md b/content/post/on-blockchain.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..40bb1b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/on-blockchain.md
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+---
+title: "On Blockchain"
+date: 2021-01-06T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Blockchain is a topic I've had thoughts on for a while now. I just never got around to writing about it. There's no shortage of wild, baseless assertions in the "crypto space" about the future of blockchain. I want to clear the air by speaking sensibly about blockchain. In accordance with my theme of not assuming prior knowledge, check out the video below if you're unfamiliar with blockchain.
+
+[Video Link][1]
+
+I'm going to talk about blockchain in the context of cryptocurrencies. Henceforth understand when I use the term "blockchain" I really mean blockchain as used in cryptocurrency. I know there are other potential use cases but I have to limit the scope of this post or it won't end. Now while I have plenty of criticism for blockchain, first I have to give the devil his due.
+
+# Blockchain's Successes
+## Cryptocurrency Markets
+For starters the multi-billion dollar cryptocurrency market may not exist without blockchain. Even non-blockchain based cryptocurrencies reference the blockchain based Bitcoin in their whitepapers. While there are functioning non-blockchain cryptocurrencies, they might never have been conceived without the initial inspiration from Bitcoin. Bitcoin is still the most valuable coin and it still uses blockchain. As I write this, it's nearing an all-time high of $30k USD per 1 BTC.
+
+## Smart Contracts
+Shortly after Bitcoin Vitalik Buterin[2]'s blockchain based Ethereum[3] cryptocurrency hit the scene featuring smart contracts[4]. Smart contracts are programs that automatically run on top of a blockchain. They enable decentralized exchanges, ERC20[5] tokens, CryptoKitties[6], decentralized cloud storage payment, governance, and digital contracts. These use cases are only possible because of the security assurance blockchain provides.
+
+## Darknet Markets
+Since cryptocurrencies enable anonymous irreversible transactions with no middlemen, they are used on darknet markets[7] which otherwise wouldn't exist. Some say darknet markets have done more to prevent drug-related violence than the DEA ever has. Those same markets also sell guns, stolen credit card details, and hackers for hire. It's hard to say one way or the other if they are an overall force for good. But darknet markets are only possible because of the anonymity of blockchain.
+
+Blockchain is a powerful, transformational technology still relevant twelve years after the Bitcoin whitepaper[8] was originally published. Love it or hate it, there's no denying its influence on cryptography, pop culture and finance.
+
+# Blockchain's Failures
+You'll notice I still use blockchain to accept donations[9] for this website. That's because I know of no better way to accept anonymous online donations. The moment I know of a better way I'll update my donation methods. If GNU Taler[10] ever gains popularity, I will use it instead. In any case, I've given the devil his due, so now I'll move on to the problems with blockchain. And blockchain is fraught with problems.
+
+## Blockchain Doesn't Scale
+Blockchain's biggest problem can be summed up in one word: scalability. To make sense of blockchain's scalability problem, CAP theorem[11] is a great place to start.
+
+### CAP Theorem
+CAP theorem says you can have no more than 2 out of the 3 qualities in a distributed data store:
+
+1. Consistency
+2. Availability
+3. Partitioning
+
+In any distributed system, partitioning is a given. Blockchain must tolerate arbitrary dropped or delayed messages in the network. Partitioning and network failures are just the reality of computer networks. The only choice left is between consistency and availability.
+
+Consistency can't be sacrificed either. Nodes must agree on which blocks are included in the blockchain otherwise you don't have a blockchain. But that means the blockchain is sometimes unavailable. That's a big problem because if you're trying to perform a transaction, you can't have the client program telling you to come back later. No one would use that cryptocurrency.
+
+To resolve this, blockchain makes a tradeoff between consistency and availability. Blockchain is eventually consistent. As the blockchain grows, nodes are guaranteed to eventually agree on new blocks. In the Bitcoin blockchain large transactions are considered final after they reach 6 blocks deep in the chain. Transactions deeper than 6 blocks are consistent across nodes.
+
+As for availability, nodes in the Bitcoin network have a mempool. A mempool or transaction pool is where transactions wait to be included in a block. Any given transaction will find its way into a block which will eventually become a finalized block so long as the Bitcoin network isn't congested. The catch is Bitcoin can only perform about 3-7 transactions per second. Faster coins can handle tens or hundreds of transactions per second, but they all have some transaction limit due to the CAP theorem.
+
+None of this is to say that cryptocurrencies can't scale. On the contrary a scalable cryptocurrency with infinite transactions per second is inevitable as long as the crypto space continues advancing. All it says is blockchain (distributed data store) can't scale up the way a cryptocurrency eventually must (infinite transactions per second). The logical conclusion is when an infinitely scalable cryptocurrency comes along it won't be blockchain based, at least not if that blockchain is a distributed data store.
+
+## Blockchain is Slow
+A problem that arises out of blockchain's scalability problem is blockchain is slow. It takes time to finalize transactions. If transaction volume is very high, it can take an indefinite amount of time to finalize a transaction. It could be hours or days. Even the fastest blockchains are torturously slow given high enough transaction volume. If you're buying goods at the supermarket that's useless. The cashier isn't going to stand there for 20 minutes waiting for your transaction to confirm. And they aren't going to take the risk of letting you leave before it confirms since you could perform a double-spend[12] in the meantime. If you pay a high fee so your transaction confirms quickly, you just drive the fees up for everyone, making the currency unusable.
+
+I can hear blockchain enthusiasts objecting saying blockchain can be fast because of "layer 2" solutions like the Bitcoin lightning network[13]. A layer 2 solution means not all transactions need to be included in the blockchain. If 2 parties transact frequently, they can establish a "payment channel" on the blockchain, perform transactions with instant confirmation off-chain, then confirm the final amounts on-chain after the payment channel expires. Once you and your favorite coffee shop have a payment channel open speed is no longer an issue.
+
+My response to layer 2 solutions is that while they greatly improve transaction speed, they doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Instead of being limited by transactions per second blockchain becomes limited by payment channels per second. You still can't have infinite payment channels opened per second because that has to occur on-chain. In that case it's not transactions that are slow. It's opening/closing transaction channels that's slow. Layer 2 solutions will never scale infinitely when layer 1 is still subject to the CAP theorem.
+
+## Blockchain Price is Volatile
+Another failure of blockchain that has nothing to do with scalability is price volatility. The price of Bitcoin for example changes dramatically. The market just can't decide how much Bitcoin or any other blockchain is worth. This makes blockchain a bad store of value[14].
+
+There are several economic theories about what gives something value. Like fiat currency, blockchain isn't backed by a commodity. It's backed by a combination of confidence, expectation, practical utility, past value[15] and because geeks think it's neat.
+
+Stablecoins are the exception to blockchain volatility. They keep the value of the coin constant. They are backed either by other blockchains, fiat currency reserves, or some commodity like gold bars. But all of these solutions are problematic.
+
+### Other Blockchains
+Backing blockchain with other blockchains is problematic since it pushes the problem of price volatility onto another cryptocurrency. It just passes the buck to someone else making for bad coupling[16].
+
+### Fiat Currencies
+Backing blockchain with fiat currency is also problematic because fiat-backed stablecoins are dependent on their fiat counterparts which in turn depend on large financial institutions and governments, effectively linking the success of the cryptocurrency with the success of the fiat currency. For maximum decentralization of power and independence, cryptocurrencies shouldn't be dependent on fiat in that way. It also passes the buck of price volatility to the fiat currency. This is bad because some fiat currencies have been even more volatile than Bitcoin!
+
+### Physical Commodities
+Backing blockchain with physical commodities is problematic for a few reasons. Someone has to hold the commodity. Who's entrusted to do that and how is it decided? Furthermore, the reserves of the commodity have to be regularly audited for confidence in the value of the coin. The value can't be trusted any more than the auditing process. The auditing process must be decentralized and setting up a decentralized auditing process everyone can trust would be highly complex. It's also terrible coupling since the cryptocurrency is dependent on an external physical process carried out by people.
+
+### Digital Commodities
+Backing blockchain with digital commodities (not other cryptocurrencies) seems viable. Digital commodities are things like processing power, disk storage space and maybe smart contracts. The advantage digital commodities have over physical ones is they can be audited automatically in a decentralized manner by the network rather than by people. They don't create unnecessary complexity or coupling. And they don't pass the buck onto another currency.
+
+Therefore price volatility isn't an inherent problem of blockchain since blockchain can be backed by digital commodities. Of course there are other reasons blockchain continues to be volatile pricewise besides lack of "inherent" value. But those are social problems related to blockchain. They don't necessarily have technical solutions. For that reason I don't consider price volatility an inherent problem of blockchain. It's only a long-term problem for blockchains that don't back their coin with a digital commodity, which just happens to be most of them right now.
+
+## Blockchain Wastes Energy
+Now onto another problem with blockchain that isn't an inherent problem but is serious enough to deserve a mention. Energy usage is a problem for the subset of blockchains that are based on proof of work[17]. Proof of work wastes tremendous amounts of energy. Whenever I bring this up, proponents of proof of work immediately counter by saying the work isn't wasted because it's used to secure the blockchain. But this argument is circular. The blockchain only needs to be secured by spending energy because that's how it was set up. There are alternatives for securing blockchain that don't require such massive energy consumption. One of those alternatives is proof of stake[18].
+
+Saying that proof of work doesn't waste energy when proof of stake uses almost no energy in comparison and gets the same job done is like cutting your lawn with scissors one blade of grass at a time and saying it's not a waste of time because it gets the grass cut meanwhile you have a working lawnmower in the garage. Given, proof of stake is newer than proof of work so we didn't always have a lawnmower. Scissors were the only option for a while. But it's 2021, we do have lawnmowers now and there's no excuse to continue using scissors to cut the grass.
+
+## Blockchain Isn't Private
+Every cryptocurrency that exists except Monero[19] fails to provide users with privacy. The sender, receiver and amount transacted are all publicly visible to everyone. While there are no real names on the blockchain, online services link Bitcoin addresses with real people, deanonymizing Bitcoin. It also means Bitcoin isn't fungible.
+
+Monero ensures that no one looking at the blockchain can see the sender, receiver or amount of a transaction by default. Monero still uses proof of work but there's formally verified research[20] from 2018 showing that there's no contradiction with having both proof of stake and privacy. Privacy isn't an inherent problem of blockchain. It's just something most blockchains unfortunately aren't implementing.
+
+# Blockchain's Inherent Problems
+The only problem inherent to blockchain is scalability. Speed is related to scalability so it can be considered as the same problem. But it's a fatal one. Blockchain cannot overcome its scalability problem. This is why blockchain is poorly suited for cryptocurrency. A new architecture is needed.
+
+## What About DAGs?
+Cryptocurrencies that use directed acyclic graphs (DAGS) like Iota[21] and Nano[22] do not solve the scalability problems plaguing blockchain because DAGs also require every node to see every transaction. Therefore CAP theorem applies and the same scalability and speed problems arise.
+
+## What About X Data Structure?
+If it qualifies as a distributed data store (i.e. every node has to see every transaction) the CAP theorem applies and it can't scale infinitely.
+
+# Why Infinite Scalability is Necessary
+Some readers might think I'm making too big a deal of scalability. After all, there are cryptocurrencies that have layer 2 scaling solutions allowing thousands of transactions per second. Isn't that good enough? Isn't it committing the black or white fallacy[23] to say that infinite scalability is necessary?
+
+No. Finite scalability isn't sufficient for a very simple reason. As I said before there will eventually be an infinitely scalable cryptocurrency, a cryptocurrency capable of infinite transactions per second. And there's no reason to think that infinite scalability is in contradiction with any of the other desirable properties of cryptocurrency. Perhaps in the short term cryptocurrency projects that don't scale infinitely can compete with ones that do. They may temporarily have some edge. For instance the first infinitely scalable cryptocurrency might not be as private as Monero, so people will still use Monero. It might not support smart contracts like Ethereum, so people will still use Ethereum. The price might not be as stable as Tether, so people will still use Tether. But those are all problems that can eventually be solved. In the long term, cryptocurrencies that don't scale, no matter how high their maximum TPS[24], won't be able to compete with ones that do scale infinitely.
+
+That's why infinite scalability is vital for the long-term success of a crypto project.
+
+# The Future of Blockchain
+For a blockchain to scale every node can't see every transaction. Nor can every node see every open channel if you have layer 2 scaling. The moment you have not all nodes seeing all transactions you're no longer talking about a blockchain. You may be talking about multiple independent blockchains, but that's not a blockchain. In that sense blockchain can't scale.
+
+If you combine my statement from the previous section that infinite scalability is vital for the long-term success of a crypto project and the fact that blockchain can't scale, you get my answer to the question of "Does blockchain have a future in cryptocurrency?". The answer is no. Blockchain has done well for the past decade and innovated and brought billions in investment into cryptocurrency which is all great, but it has no long-term future in cryptocurrency. I'll generalize that and say globally synced data structures (distributed data stores) have no long-term future in cryptocurrency.
+
+That's all I have to say about blockchain. Now I want to broaden the scope to cryptocurrency in general. So let's talk about what the future of cryptocurrency might look like.
+
+# The Future of Cryptocurrency
+The market isn't going to be flooded with thousands of cryptocurrencies forever. Investors will eventually realize that most cryptocurrency projects can't deliver on their promises and they will pull their money out. The fate of around 90% of cryptocurrencies is failure. Eventually there has to be a "thinning out" of cryptocurrencies and a consolidation of effort among projects that are making the most progress. Given that reality, my advice to cryptocurrency developers is this:
+
+Developers in the crypto space need to reassess which projects are still worth investing time and effort into. While there are billions of dollars invested in the crypto space, interest is high and universities are teaching blockchain, it would be wise to focus research and development on the projects with the best prospects for future success.
+
+For example, Monero is superior to Bitcoin[25]. It has private transactions[26]. Bitcoin doesn't. It has a fairer proof of work algorithm[27]. It has a tail emission[28] so miners will always be rewarded. Bitcoin doesn't. Compared to more modern cryptocurrencies Bitcoin is pure garbage. Development effort in Bitcoin should therefore be redirected to Monero or for that matter any cryptocurrency with better prospects.
+
+You might say the same thing about Monero. It will never scale unless it abandons blockchain. That most likely will never happen. Shouldn't research and development effort be redirected to a project that will scale? And that's a fair point. I think about it by dividing cryptocurrencies into the following categories:
+
+## Next-Gen Cryptocurrencies
+The cryptocurrency projects most worth investment, research and development are those with real prospects of infinite scalability since scalability has been the issue for a decade now. The other desirable qualities for a cryptocurrency are easier to add later but scalability is something that has to be designed for from the beginning. I'm not talking about temporary layer 2 scaling solutions that are only band-aids to the problem. Layer 2 solutions actually prove my point that in order to achieve infinite scalability it can't be an afterthought. Scalability has to be baked into the design from the very beginning. I would place Safe Network[29] in this category.
+
+## Useful Cryptocurrencies
+Then there are projects in use today that work well and are likely to continue to be useful in the short-term (a few years), but they don't scale infinitely. They won't be viable long term. Investing time and effort into them isn't a waste since they serve a useful purpose now. Monero[30] is a perfect example. It offers privacy. Ethereum[31] offers smart contracts and proof of stake. Nano[32] offers feeless instant transactions and decent scalability.
+
+## Outdated Cryptocurrencies
+And then you have projects that have been important in the past, but should probably be abandoned now. They have no unique properties that make them especially useful. They aren't making any major innovations. It's probably a waste of time to develop for them other than critical bug fixes. I'm looking at Bitcoin[33], Bitcoin Cash[34], and Litecoin[35].
+
+## Vaporware
+Finally there are the projects that are going absolutely nowhere. They are held up by marketing and the illusion of progress through smoke and mirrors. They trick gullible investors and sometimes themselves into thinking they are the next big thing. When you look closely at their whitepaper and fundamentals it becomes clear their solutions don't work in the real world. Iota[36] is in this category. It's centralized, yet it has been promising decentralization for years with no way to get there. When evaluating these kinds of projects, remember Hanlon's razor:
+
+> "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
+
+# Crypto Optimism
+After dishing out so much criticism of blockchain and the crypto space, I want to end on a positive note. I'm actually very optimistic about the crypto space. With so many different cryptocurrency projects, things can seem like a chaotic mess. But out of the ashes of a thousand failed projects and lost savings will rise a phoenix. That phoenix is the first decentralized, infinitely scalable, fast, value stable, energy efficient, private cryptocurrency. It might take a long time to get there, but the mere technical possibility has me confident we will see it come to fruition. It will accomplish what Bitcoin originally set out to do.
+
+Blockchain will be seen as a prototype, a stepping stone that kicked off something greater. There will be other "stepping stones" along the way. But scalability and the abandonment of globally synced data structures has to be the first. The other issues with cryptocurrency have only been solved in the context of globally synced data structures that don't scale. Those solutions won't necessarily translate over to a scalable context. When infinite scalability is finally achieved, we will hit the next milestone toward Satoshi Nakamoto[37]'s original vision of a decentralized, digital, free (as in freedom) financial system available to everyone but owned by no one.
+
+That is something to get excited about.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SSo_EIwHSd4&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SSo_EIwHSd4&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Vitalik_Buterin](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Vitalik_Buterin)
+[3: https://ethereum.org](https://ethereum.org)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Smart_contract](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Smart_contract)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/ERC20](https://wikiless.org/wiki/ERC20)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/CryptoKitties](https://wikiless.org/wiki/CryptoKitties)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Darknet_market](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Darknet_market)
+[8: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)
+[9: /about](../../../../about/)
+[10: http://www.gnu.org/ghm/2020-january/taler.pdf](http://www.gnu.org/ghm/2020-january/taler.pdf)
+[11: https://wikiless.org/wiki/CAP_theorem](https://wikiless.org/wiki/CAP_theorem)
+[12: https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Double-spending](https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Double-spending)
+[13: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Lightning_Network](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Lightning_Network)
+[14: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/storeofvalue.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/storeofvalue.asp)
+[15: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Regression_theorem](https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Regression_theorem)
+[16: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Coupling_%28computer_programming%29](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Coupling_%28computer_programming%29)
+[17: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Proof_of_work](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Proof_of_work)
+[18: https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html](https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html)
+[19: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Monero_(cryptocurrency)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Monero_(cryptocurrency))
+[20: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/1105.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/1105.pdf)
+[21: https://www.iota.org/](https://www.iota.org/)
+[22: https://nano.org](https://nano.org)
+[23: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white)
+[24: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Transactions_per_second](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Transactions_per_second)
+[25: https://www.monero.how/why-monero-vs-bitcoin](https://www.monero.how/why-monero-vs-bitcoin)
+[26: https://www.monero.how/how-does-monero-privacy-work](https://www.monero.how/how-does-monero-privacy-work)
+[27: https://web.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/randomx.html](https://web.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/randomx.html)
+[28: https://www.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/tail-emission.html](https://www.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/tail-emission.html)
+[29: https://safenetwork.org](https://safenetwork.org)
+[30: https://www.monero.how](https://www.monero.how)
+[31: https://ethereum.org](https://ethereum.org)
+[32: https://nano.org](https://nano.org)
+[33: https://bitcoin.org](https://bitcoin.org)
+[34: https://www.bitcoincash.org](https://www.bitcoincash.org)
+[35: https://litecoin.com](https://litecoin.com)
+[36: https://www.iota.org](https://www.iota.org)
+[37: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto)
diff --git a/content/post/on-compassion.md b/content/post/on-compassion.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92ea646
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/on-compassion.md
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+---
+title: "On Compassion"
+date: 2021-10-19T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Traditional View of Compassion
+Compassion for me simply means a concern for other conscious beings, whether those beings are other people, toads, whales, bats, or even slugs. Compassion doesn't exclude any conscious being. This is usually obvious to everybody for non-human animals. Specifically because we never ascribe them moral agency. If a bear mauls someone to death, then it isn't personal. Even the family of the mauled person probably wouldn't hate the bear because they would know it's just a bear doing what bears do. Bears have no concept of right or wrong. So we don't hold them responsible for their actions the same way we do people. We might still kill that bear, but we wouldn't do it out of hatred. It would be killed out of necessity and hopefully as humanely as possible.
+
+Now people on the other hand are ascribed moral agency. People know right from wrong and it's thought that they have the free will to choose between the two. So someone that chooses to do wrong is considered undeserving of compassion and possibly deserving of suffering.
+
+Now in normal conversation I don't feel the need to clarify words like "choice" with a lengthy explanation of how free will doesn't actually exist, because 99% of the time it doesn't matter. But "choice" is a leaky abstraction which causes problems in rare cases. I've written about this before in the context of Newcomb's Paradox.[1] As it turns out, compassion is another one of those rare cases where it's important to be extremely clear about language like "choice". So I'm forced to talk about the subject of free will again.
+
+# The Sensible View of Compassion
+I've already debunked free will in two separate journal entries.[2][3] You can go read those if you like. If not, I'm about to give a crash course anyways. If anything you're about to read in the next section confuses you or you find it hard to follow, I suggest going back to my two previous posts dedicated to free will for some background. With that, I'll continue.
+
+## Hate is Unjustifiable
+Ask yourself, are you responsible for the fact that you weren't born baby Hitler? If you think the answer is yes, then who exactly is the self that can take credit for not being born baby Hitler? It can't be your present self with all your mental faculties and memories and moral principles because your present self didn't exist when Hitler was born. How is it that you can claim responsibility for who you are now when scientifically we know that who you are now is a mere product of past events of which you had no control? You didn't wire your own brain. And even if you somehow think you did, who wired the self that wired your brain? You see, pretending people have absolute responsibility is absurd.
+
+So it makes no sense to take pride in not being Hitler. It makes no sense to feel shame for not being Gandhi. It makes no sense to take credit or feel ashamed for who you are now. You aren't ultimately responsible for you. That would be circular. So when you're tempted to hate an evil person, just remember "It's only by mere luck that I'm not them." When you deeply understand this, any satisfaction from evil people suffering goes away. You have to ask yourself "If I had been unlucky enough to be an evil person who harms others, what would I want to happen to me?" You would probably want to be incarcerated inside a facility with decent living conditions that could rehabilitate you, assuming you're the kind of evil person that also breaks laws. Obviously not all evil people break laws and not all lawbreakers are evil.
+
+In the U.S. some states still have the death penalty. When I see people cheering on the executions, it's clear to me these people are very confused about free will. Once you realize that you yourself not being an evil person is mere luck, it just doesn't make sense to stand there and cheer on the death of someone who is very evil. People just confuse themselves into thinking that everyone is ultimately responsible for who they are and they use that as a justification to hate others. But we know that's not true. So the next time that you're tempted to hate, know you're being stupid.
+
+## Compassion Makes Sense
+Compassion as the alternative to hate actually makes sense based on what we know about free will. And I'm not talking about the "I care about you because..." compassion. It's a kind of compassion that you don't have to earn. You get it for free just because you're a conscious being. And there's nothing you can do to become undeserving of it either. You might call it "universal compassion", "unconditional compassion", or "unconditional love".
+
+"Universal compassion" is rational even in the most extreme cases. Even if someone murdered my whole family, I would sincerely hope that I'd have compassion for that person. I wouldn't want to hate them. I wouldn't want them to suffer unnecessarily. Perhaps I'd be so clouded by rage in the moment that I'd want them to suffer, but I'm telling you now while I'm not emotionally hijacked that I would not want them to suffer. I would want the best possible life for that person and I consider wanting people to endure avoidable suffering as a sickness.
+
+Compassion is also why I don't ever feel good about people in my country going to prison. It doesn't make me happy to see capitol insurrectionists sent to federal prison because I know the U.S. prison system is broken and unjust. It doesn't rehabilitate people and it's a disgrace to human dignity. I don't care who gets thrown in there. Until the prison system fundamentally changes focus to compassion and rehabilitation rather than retribution, every single person in prison is being done an injustice regardless why they're there.
+
+# Hate Masquerading as Compassion (Cancel Culture)
+Okay, everyone knows prisons are hateful places. But the very worst kind of hate is the kind that masquerades as compassion.
+
+I've seen young people, as their immediate first instinct, pull out their smartphones and record someone else who is being homophobic or racist or transphobic and later publish it to social media in an attempt to weaponize the social media cancel mob against them. Perhaps to make them lose their job, be ostracized from their community, or have total strangers think poorly of them.
+
+## Is Cancel Culture Helpful?
+These smartphone-wielding social justice warriors who treat the social media hate mob as their own personal weapon fail to realize that they themselves are guilty of the very thing they're attempting to expose. Is purposely mobilizing an online hate mob against someone any less hateful than being a racist? You're not going to make <insert ism here> go away by shaming people. You're just making people uncomfortable to express it which pushes it into the shadows. It doesn't actually disappear.
+
+Let's do a thought experiment and I've seen this happen before: An older lady shamed a young girl for her promiscuity. The young girl pulled out her smartphone to record the older lady and posted the incident on social media. In the comments, the social justice mob went after this lady: "What a horrible person. Nobody likes her. She's just jealous of the young girl's looks." and on and on. Now let's suppose the lady even saw the comments being made about her. Do you think she was encouraged to be more compassionate and understanding by random internet strangers telling her off?
+
+Is stoking an internet hate mob really the best way to go about promoting self-reflection? Is that really what compassion looks like? Is that what justice looks like? I don't think so. There are better ways to get people to self-reflect. People that do this clearly have bad motives. If it's someone in a position of power being exposed like a politician or leader of some community, then obviously to some degree they're signing up to public scrutiny. But when it's done to <insert ist here> Joe Blow, what good is coming out of that?
+
+## Lack of a Mechanism For Forgiveness
+And don't forget there's practically no way to atone for your wrongdoing after you've been cancelled. If your public racism gets recorded on video and uploaded and you get cancelled, and then after some self-reflection you see the error of your ways, it's too late. You've already been condemned. Everyone who saw the video already thinks you're a racist jerk. Even if you make a formal apology, is everybody going to see that? And even if they do, will they believe that it's genuine or will they think you're just apologizing to get uncancelled? There is no mechanism for forgiveness because the internet never forgets and your mistake stands independent from any atonement or personal growth you've made since.
+
+## The True Motives of Cancel Culture
+The people who cancel others already understand all of this though. They understand it's very hard to get uncancelled. And they don't care. Their motives aren't really to expose injustice or solve anything. They have no interest in apologies or giving you a chance to atone. Their only motive is vengeance on the person they perceive to have wronged them. That's it. They just want random internet strangers to take their side and hurl insults. If that's not hate, then I don't know what is.
+
+In conclusion, social justice warrior style cancel culture is the antithesis of compassion. And the worst thing about it is it pretends to have compassionate motives, namely "fighting for justice". Of course I'm not saying conservatives don't also participate in cancel culture. They definitely do.[4] I've just chosen not to focus on that for this entry.
+
+# Recognizing Compassion and Hate
+Since people confuse something as hateful as cancel culture for compassion and fighting for justice, it's worth talking about how to recognize real compassion and real justice. So here's a litmus test for whether an act is hateful: Is the intent to cause avoidable suffering? If yes, then it's a hateful act. Compassionate acts may still cause suffering. But that suffering is unavoidable. It would've happened whether or not the action was taken.
+
+Take an example of a parent who spoils a child by never telling the child no. The child grows up a brat, causing avoidable suffering for others. It's better to cause the child temporary suffering by telling them no so they don't turn into a brat. But spoiling a child is not hateful because the intent is not to cause avoidable suffering. It's common for people to be compassionate yet totally misguided. Misguided people cause avoidable suffering even though most have compassionate motives. So outcome does not always indicate whether someone is driven by compassion.
+
+The mark of a compassionate person is when they do not relish in the suffering of people they dislike. There's no need for them to be apologetic about it though if the suffering is unavoidable. Since it's hard to know for sure whether certain suffering is unavoidable, compassionate people often err on the side of being overly apologetic or at least empathetic.
+
+# Misconceptions About Compassion
+Now that I've talked about how to recognize compassionate acts, motives, and people, I want to switch gears and talk about some common misconceptions about compassion.
+
+## Compassion is Impractical
+The most common misconception is that being too compassionate is a form of weakness and is therefore impractical. But the truth is the opposite. Letting other people make you angry or vengeful or hateful, that is weakness. That's an impractical way to live a good life. If another person can control your emotional life just by doing or saying something, isn't that slavery?
+
+### Armed Combat
+Compassion is very practical. It's fully compatible with all worthwhile societal and individual goals. Even fighting wars and killing people can be done out of compassion. Given, it might be counterproductive to be in a "compassionate mindset" while fighting a war. Nonetheless, if the war is just, the combatant's actions are compassionate irrespective of their mindset. There are also contexts besides war where killing someone is justified. If an armed gunman breaks into a home and starts shooting, the homeowner is justified in returning fire. Such an act reflects not hatred of the gunman, but compassion for oneself.
+
+### School Bullying
+In the case of a school bully, you may think being compassionate would make you an easy target. But one should not equate compassion with letting yourself get picked on. That would be a misunderstanding of compassion. With a bully, retaliation can be the most compassionate thing you can do. Defending yourself is a form of self-compassion. Teaching bullies they can't pick on others is also compassionate, even if it requires violence and the bully gets hurt temporarily.
+
+### Brutal Honesty
+Being brutally honest with people, even if it hurts their feelings, can also be a form of compassion. Letting other people deceive themselves is not compassionate. It's true there are better and worse ways to burst someone's bubble, but sugarcoating things is not compassionate. Often the intentions are compassionate, but the outcome never is. So as a brutally honest person, you might hurt people's feelings more often than others. But chances are you're going to do them a lot more good than people who are distorting their reality by sugarcoating things all the time.
+
+My point with these examples is that being compassionate should not be thought of as being "soft". Being compassionate need not conform to any particular personality type. Everyone is going to have their own way of showing compassion. You can be compassionate without emulating stereotypically compassionate people. And there are small ways to show compassion even when you're forced into situations where you have to act violently such as in war.
+
+There's also no personal history that's incompatible with deciding to be a compassionate person in the present. It's not like "Oh I did this bad thing in the past so I can never be a compassionate person." Your past never precludes you from being compassionate right now. This of course doesn't mean you're entitled to unlimited second chances from others. It just means you can always start fresh. Past hateful behavior and others' negative perceptions of you don't bar you from improvement.
+
+## You Can Force Yourself to be Compassionate
+Another misconception about compassion is that you can force it. Traditionally, people think you must control your emotions by force. You must not let them get "out of control" or else you'll mistreat others. This is a hoax. The true way to control your emotions is accepting them and letting them go. Paradoxically, control comes from accepting that life may not go the way you expect it to and there's nothing you can do to force it.
+
+You could get into a fatal car accident tomorrow. If you don't die an early death, you'll become old and feeble. You might develop a mental disorder and lose your mind. Everyone you care about will eventually die and there's nothing you can do to stop it. One day, the last person who remembers you will die and you'll be forgotten forever. There's a good chance all humanity will destroy itself in the near future. Everything that matters to you will one day be gone.
+
+I say these things not to depress you, but to get you to realize that there is nothing permanent in life. So the only sensible thing to do is let go. You can still participate in life and do all the things you want to do. Letting go just means you don't have a stake in the outcome. You're just going to do your best and accept the rest. That's self-compassion.
+
+I know it sounds cliché, but real change comes from within. Trying to "force" yourself to change is self-hate in disguise. Trying to force others to change is hate as well. This is usually obvious to the person you're trying to force change upon unless they're so guilt-ridden that they hate themselves too.
+
+### Letting Go Requires Awareness
+I should also note that awareness is a prerequisite of the letting go I'm talking about. It's not as simple as just letting go. Most people live life too dimly aware to even realize when they're trying to control things by force that can't be controlled. I don't count myself as exempt from this. Awareness can come from a practice like mindfulness meditation. Mindfulness can make you a more aware, more compassionate, less reactive person.
+
+### The Social Expectation of Suffering
+Then there's also the social aspect. So many people are suffering and dissatisfied with life that it has become a social expectation. When the average person comes across someone like Eckhart Tolle who isn't waiting for a reason to be happy, who is content doing nothing but sitting on a park bench for years on end[5], they deny that level of inner peace is even possible and attribute it to mental illness[6].
+
+I'm not saying that Tolle isn't mentally ill or is "fully enlightened". But to me it seems whoever wrote that article about him went out of their way to mischaracterize everything he said, or at least, not give him the benefit of the doubt.
+
+Despite what IrrationalWiki implies, there is no obligation to suffer when bad things happen. You are not a "better person" for suffering and your suffering won't change the outcome anyways. Suffering more also does not mean you care more. If other people don't understand that or they think you are a bad person because you don't let events in the world perturb your inner peace, that's their problem. You can try to help them understand how to have self-compassion, but at the end of the day, they have to give themselves permission to feel better.
+
+To clarify, not suffering doesn't mean you never show emotion. Even displaying negative emotions isn't necessarily an indication of suffering. There's a misconception that suffering is a direct consequence of pain. Actually suffering is a consequence of unacknowledged pain. It's not allowing yourself to hurt when you need to that robs you of your peace of mind and makes you suffer. So please don't interpret giving yourself permission not to suffer as never showing emotions or never feeling pain because that's not what it is.
+
+# Conclusion
+In conclusion, there's no reason not to be compassionate to yourself and to others. And there's no situation where it's advantageous to act out of hate. Hate is fundamentally irrational. Wanting others to suffer needlessly or for yourself to suffer is only destructive. Nobody "deserves" to suffer. You should also never feel socially "obligated" to suffer. Compassion is the way forward for us individually and as a species. In fact I believe the survival of our species depends on us showing more compassion to one another.
+
+Being more compassionate is not just a matter of knowing that hate is irrational on an intellectual level. It takes practice. That practice can take the shape of many forms. It could be setting aside your ego and apologizing to people you've wronged in the past. It could look like treating people you're surrounded better, even in small ways. It could be practicing mindfulness to become more aware of your internal states and thus more accepting of them and compassionate to yourself.
+
+Fortunately things seem to be slowly moving in the right direction. At least, in civilized societies, it's already unfashionable to hate others based on their race, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. But we have to go much further than that. We have to make all hate unfashionable. We must also remember replacing one form of hate with another doesn't solve anything. It has to be replaced with compassion.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Newcomb's Paradox Resolved](../../../../2020/11/28/newcombs-paradox-resolved)
+[2: Free Will is Incoherent Part 1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
+[3: Free Will is Incoherent Part 2](../../../../2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/)
+[4: How Conservatives Created Cancel Culture #shorts](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8XUhtIQ7rng)
+[5: Eckhart Tolle](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle)
+[6: So Called Rationalists "Debunking" Eckhart Tolle](https://web.archive.org/web/20211017211346id_/https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle)
diff --git a/content/post/on-drug-checking-tools.md b/content/post/on-drug-checking-tools.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f36af79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/on-drug-checking-tools.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: "On Drug Checking Tools"
+date: 2022-01-20T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Why Are Drug Checking Tools Illegal?
+Why are drug checking tools illegal in the US? The overwhelming evidence is that drug testing kits save lives, yet many US states still criminalize them. Testing kits are considered drug paraphernalia, which is the government's way of saying "It's something to do with illegal drugs and illegal drugs are bad, so it's also illegal and bad."
+
+If that sounds like the logic of a preschooler, that's because it is. The only difference is a preschooler doesn't know the word paraphernalia. Why bother with evidence or statistics when you can criminalize things without a reason?
+
+What could possibly be the reason for making drug testing kits illegal? Even conservatives don't believe drug addicts will forego their fix just because they can't test their substance. Criminalizing drug checking tools only makes people less safe. Where is the bipartisan push to legalize these drug checking tools?
+
+Not only is the US government telling people what they can put inside their own body, but they also prohibit people from even testing the substances they put in their own body. How does that make any sense? What's the justification?
+
+# Who Benefits From Draconian Anti-Safety Laws?
+I'm no libertarian, but if prohibiting people from testing substances they're going to put inside their body isn't tyrannical, I don't know what is. I assume the beneficiaries of this insanely idiotic anti-safety law are the usual suspects: thugs[2], cartels, and sometimes banksters.
+
+## Thugs
+Thugs want to prolong the war on drugs to get fatter budgets. Drugs are their excuse to expand their power so they can stomp on people's rights in new ways, moving the US closer to fascism.
+
+## Cartels
+The cartels rely on drugs as a major source of profit. Without it, they'll lose money. Crime and violence would go down, but that only directly benefits non-rich people, so politicians don't care.
+
+## Big Banks
+The banksters also take their cut of the war on drugs. Big banks launder billions worth of illegal cartel money. Destroying people's lives is very lucrative. 
+
+# Conclusion
+Weakening of drug laws means these three groups lose money. They're determined to make sure that doesn't happen because apparently money is more important to them than the millions of lives the war on drugs is ruining.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Legalize All Drugs](../../../../2020/11/08/legalize-all-drugs/)
+[2: Thug](https://stallman.org/glossary.html#thug)
diff --git a/content/post/on-malware.md b/content/post/on-malware.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..85f25ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/on-malware.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+title: "On Malware"
+date: 2021-03-12T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# A Hypothetical Program
+Imagine a program that:
+
+1. Has a "universal back door" that allows the developer to make remote changes to users' systems without their knowledge or permission. [1]
+2. Forces upgrades on its users. [2]
+3. Steals users' encryption keys. [3]
+4. Forcibly removes software from its users' systems [4].
+5. Pesters its users when they don't install the "preferred browser". [5]
+6. Displays annoying ads on users' systems. [6].
+7. Spies on users while they use it, with surveillance anti-features that cannot be disabled. [7]
+8. Forces users to be online just to write a text document. [8]
+9. Blocks users from downloading any apps other than the ones the developers approve of. [9]
+10. Purposely deletes ebooks that users have already bought. [10]
+
+Would you count this program as malware? What if I told you that somewhere between 70%-90% of desktop and laptop computers have this program installed?
+
+# What is Malware?
+I am of course talking about the Windows 10 operating system. Windows 10 did all of these things at one point or another and still does many of them. Let's not forget that operating systems are "just" programs too. They manage system resources and act as a middleman between the hardware and the user, but they are "just" programs like anything else. And any kind of program can potentially be malware.
+
+If I asked a classroom full of computer science students if Windows 10 is malware, I'd have a hard time finding someone besides GNU/Linux nerds to say yes. However, if I asked the same question listing the 10 items as I did just now with no mention of Windows 10, I'd be hard-pressed finding someone to say no. Why is that?
+
+There exists a strong bias especially among the tech industry and academia not to see useful software as malware. Windows 10 isn't entirely malicious like ransomware or a virus. Windows 10 is very useful and its "primary" function as an operating system is not malicious although it has far more known anti-features than I'm comfortable with and probably a host of others no one even knows about. With all that said, the vast majority of Microsoft employees that code Windows 10 are not intentionally adding anti-features and the employees that are adding them probably wouldn't consider the anti-features they add "malicious". None of this detracts from the fact that these anti-features are in fact malicious and are basically harming the world.
+
+# Expanding the Definition of Malware
+Now my goal in this post is not to say that you have to call Windows 10, or any other program with anti-features, malware. The point is that right now most computer users have a very narrow idea of what counts as malware and I hope to expand that. With a computer virus, worm or trojan, infecting the target machine is almost always the main goal of the program. In cases where it's not, there's usually a supply chain attack where the virus is embedded inside a useful program that was written by another developer to trick users into downloading it.
+
+Malware is a more generic term, so it need not be the case that its main purpose is to harm users. Malware is simply malicious software, software that contains anti-features. Telemetry isn't always malicious if done right especially if it can be disabled. However, remotely deleting users ebooks, whether or not they "agreed" to the terms of service which nobody has the time to read let alone understand, forcing users to be online just to create documents, having a universal backdoor and intrusive telemetry that is impossible to turn off, that's malware. There's no excuse for anti-features like that to be out of the user's control.
+
+# Malware in Free Software
+The main difference with malware in free and proprietary software is when a free program has anti-features, they can't be hidden from the users. The anti-features are out in the open. With proprietary software like Windows 10 there's no way to determine how many anti-features it contains. It could easily contain far more than we already know about.
+
+It is true that free software generally has far fewer anti-features due to its very nature of the source code being public. However free (as in freedom) software isn't immune to malware. The Spyware Watchdog Article Catalog lists free software programs that it considers spyware. Spyware is a subcategory of malware focused on user spying. The catalog is doing with spyware much the same thing I'm doing with the word malware; it is applying a broader definition of spyware to programs to see what happens. The results are quite interesting. See the link below for their spyware list.
+
+[Spyware Watchdog][11]
+
+Finally, one reason free software has less malware is reputation. Reputation is important to many programmers and adding anti-features to programs might mean no one will trust your work any more, so there's a strong incentive to not do that. This is true even if you're only pseudonymous like some i2p developers are. Your anonymous identity still has a reputation and it's best to preserve it.
+
+# Closing
+I want to encourage readers to consider expanding their idea of what counts as malware and to start using the term "malware" more often to describe common programs with anti-features. Malware programs like Windows 10 are too normalized. We must demand better and freer software and one way to do that is by changing the words we use when talking about software.
+
+You'll also notice I use the word "anti-feature" instead of "feature". This is another way we can change our language to expose the truth about what these programs actually do. Calling anti-features malicious features instead may be better for non-technical audiences. What matters is getting the point across to others that these features don't deserve to be called features unqualified because they are malicious and they hurt the user.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: http://www.informationweek.com/microsoft-updates-windows-without-user-permission-apologizes/d/d-id/1059183](http://www.informationweek.com/microsoft-updates-windows-without-user-permission-apologizes/d/d-id/1059183)
+[2: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/manage-updates-in-windows-10-643e9ea7-3cf6-7da6-a25c-95d4f7f099fe](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/manage-updates-in-windows-10-643e9ea7-3cf6-7da6-a25c-95d4f7f099fe)
+[3: https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-windows-computer-microsoft-probably-has-your-encryption-key/](https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-windows-computer-microsoft-probably-has-your-encryption-key/)
+[4: https://uk.pcmag.com/operating-systems/131798/microsoft-starts-automatically-removing-flash-from-windows](https://uk.pcmag.com/operating-systems/131798/microsoft-starts-automatically-removing-flash-from-windows)
+[5: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/12/microsoft-intercepting-firefox-chrome-installation-on-windows-10/](https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/12/microsoft-intercepting-firefox-chrome-installation-on-windows-10/)
+[6: http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14956540/microsoft-windows-10-ads-taskbar-file-explorer](http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14956540/microsoft-windows-10-ads-taskbar-file-explorer)
+[7: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/dutch-privacy-regulator-says-that-windows-10-breaks-the-law](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/dutch-privacy-regulator-says-that-windows-10-breaks-the-law)
+[8: https://products.office.com/en-us/microsoft-office-for-home-and-school-faq?legRedir=true&amp;CorrelationId=c9c5b549-11ad-4f71-bf81-b7e069fdb372](https://products.office.com/en-us/microsoft-office-for-home-and-school-faq?legRedir=true&amp;CorrelationId=c9c5b549-11ad-4f71-bf81-b7e069fdb372)
+[9: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/windows-10-s-microsoft-faster-pc-comparison](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/windows-10-s-microsoft-faster-pc-comparison)
+[12: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47810367](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47810367)
+[11: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/index.html](https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/index.html)
diff --git a/content/post/on-spirituality.md b/content/post/on-spirituality.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..46f1f41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/on-spirituality.md
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+title: "On Spirituality"
+date: 2021-01-17T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Clarification
+> "The fundamental game of being is like the game of hide and go seek. We hide in the thoughts we don't know we're having. They become who we are. Then one day, something or someone wakes us up and we realize we were playing a game the entire time. This could take 10 seconds or 10 years depending on the person. But, the game goes on several times in a single human life, played out in a different way each time. Just imagine all the ways the game is being played across all of humanity. The game of being a good person and not an evil one. The game of seeking happiness. The game of seeking enlightenment..."
+> 
+> -- Me in Ego Traps[1]
+
+Some of you just read that thinking something along the lines of "What on earth is he talking about? He's gone off the deep end". Skeptics would say I'm peddling Deepak Chopra[2] level woo-woo[3]. And I can't blame them for thinking that. Take the first sentence "The fundamental game of being is like the game of hide and go seek". If you read that as a literal statement, it's unfalsifiable at best and meaningless at worst. The rest of that paragraph and parts of other posts tagged "spirituality" have the same problem. For that, I apologize. I never meant to peddle woo-woo. I am definitely no Deepak Chopra and I have no intentions of promoting pseudoscience or irrational thinking.
+
+At the time I probably wasn't even sure how I wanted those posts to be interpreted. I was unsure of my writing because I was unsure of my thinking. You can see that in my protracted preface to Doublethink[4]:
+
+> As a quick note, what people post online is often taken as something they will forever agree with and are forever held to. This is unreasonable. There needs to be some equivalent of forgiveness if one posts something horrible online, but that's a topic for another post. I'm not saying people aren't responsible for what they post. But I am saying we should aspire to take the most charitable interpretation of what people post if we care about advancing the conversation. Obviously a person's character is a factor in how you interpret what they post.
+> 
+> On my blog, I want to retain the right to post not only ideas that I understand well. But I also want the freedom to talk about things I'm not sure about. That means I run the risk of being wrong. No one posting their ideas online openly should expect to be immune to criticism. Criticism comes with the territory. But I want to say I'm interested in sharing ideas. If it's clear to me you're only interested in taking my words out of context, twisting what I write or using cheap gotcha's because I didn't state something perfectly, then I probably won't respond. If you want clarification about anything I discuss, visit my about page[5] for contact details. With that cleared up, let's move on to the meat of this post.
+> 
+> -- Me in Doublethink[6]
+
+Anyone who has tried to express spiritual experiences and concepts can attest to the difficulty of conveying them to others without sounding like a quack[7]. I don't have a good remedy for that. What I do have is an explanation for why it's so difficult.
+
+# Why Talking About Spirituality is Hard
+There's a simple reason talking about spirituality is hard. It's because words never do justice to spiritual experience. Nothing I can say in the English language, or any other language, can convey the gravity of a truly spiritual experience. Spiritual orators therefore appropriately resort to analogy, myth and storytelling to allude to their spiritual experiences.
+
+# Spirituality and Skeptics
+The problem skeptics readily point out is most spiritual orators are all too sympathetic to pseudoscience, religion and woo-woo. This leads them to conclude that spiritual experiences are just forms of mental illness and irrationality. What they don't realize is spiritual orators gravitate to pseudoscience, religion and woo-woo precisely because skeptics fail to connect to the character of spiritual experiences. That is to say if I want to talk about spirituality I have a much better chance at effectively imparting my experiences to a priest than a skeptic. To quote Sam Harris' blog post What's the Point of Transcendence?[8]:
+
+> "...experiences of self-transcendence are generally only sought and interpreted in a religious or “spiritual” context—and these are precisely the phenomena that tend to increase a person’s faith. How many Christians, having felt self-transcending love for their neighbors in church or body-dissolving bliss in prayer, decide to ditch Christianity? Not many, I would guess. How many people who never have experiences of this kind (no matter how hard they try) become atheists? I don’t know, but there is no question that these states of mind act as a kind of filter: they get counted in support of ancient dogma by the faithful; and their absence seems to give my fellow atheists yet another reason to reject religion.
+> 
+> Reading the comments on Jerry’s blog exposes the problem in full. There are several people there who have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about—and they take this to mean that I am not making sense. Of course, religious people often present the opposite problem: they tend to think they know exactly what I’m talking about, in so far as it can seem to support one religious doctrine or another. Both these orientations present impressive obstacles to understanding."
+
+Harris has even had to defend his use of the word spiritual[9] and argue that spiritual experiences actually happen[10]. Us spiritual skeptics have always been on the defense of spirituality against skeptics that seem to have never had a spiritual experience in their life. Or if they have had such an experience they somehow failed to see the significance of it[11].
+
+# Going Forward
+I don't want to always be playing defense when sharing spiritual ideas. But I do want to avoid making unsubstantiated and vague claims about the nature of experience. So from this point forward posts tagged "spirituality" are not to be interpreted as truth-apt[12], even in the limited context of subjective experience. In other words I'm not making any truth claims. But I also want to clarify that I'm not writing mere "poetry" either. What I am trying to do is offer a body of text, which is artistic in nature, that corresponds to a real subjective experience had by myself or someone else.
+
+If you read the experiments on headless.org[13] that I have referred to in the past, my spiritual writing going forward will be similar to that writing style. It's the same sort of writing. However the reason I want to avoid making truth-apt claims is that we all have different subjective experiences. The final authority on your experience is you. If your subjective experience contradicts my writing, your subjective experience should take precedence. My inner world is almost certainly different than yours and I'm not trying to impose by saying you must relate to a specific myth or poem[14] or experiment[15] that I find compelling.
+
+The reason I share that myth or poem or experiment is because I found it compelling or at least I saw how others could find it compelling in their spiritual journey. Your experience may be completely different and that's absolutely fine. It's to be expected because we're dealing in subjectivity, not objectivity.
+
+As for my past posts on spirituality, you should interpret them in the same way. Think of my spiritual posts as doors to experiences. Some doors are locked. You're forever barred from what lies behind them. Those experiences are simply not in the cards for you. Other doors require a key. It's possible to find out what's behind those doors, but it takes some effort. Other doors are missing doorknobs. They might already be cracked open or you might open them by accident. It's perfectly fine to be drawn toward certain doors and not others. This doesn't mean you can't make missteps on your spiritual journey. It just means my journey isn't identical to yours.
+
+In summary, read the spiritual texts you find most compelling by all means but give your own conscious experience precendence over any text. I'm not trying to make objective truth claims about reality or present a theory in the typical sense of the word.  My spiritual writing is expressly written with the hope that you relate to it in your inner world or are entertained by it. In the best case it even helps to further your spiritual life journey. That's all I'm trying to do with these posts. Nothing more.
+
+I'll link to this section in future spirituality posts where it's applicable so there's no confusion on how to interpret my writing.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: /2020/08/02/ego-traps](../../../../2020/08/02/ego-traps/)
+[2: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra)
+[3: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo)
+[4: /2020/06/14/doublethink](../../../../2020/06/14/doublethink/)
+[5: /about](../../../../about/)
+[6: /2020/06/14/doublethink](../../../../2020/06/14/doublethink/)
+[7: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quackery](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quackery)
+[8: https://samharris.org/whats-the-point-of-transcendence/](https://samharris.org/whats-the-point-of-transcendence/)
+[9: https://samharris.org/a-plea-for-spirituality/](https://samharris.org/a-plea-for-spirituality/)
+[10: https://samharris.org/on-spiritual-truths/](https://samharris.org/on-spiritual-truths/)
+[11: https://samharris.org/whats-the-point-of-transcendence/](https://samharris.org/whats-the-point-of-transcendence/)
+[12: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Truth-apt](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Truth-apt)
+[13: https://headless.org/experiments/](https://headless.org/experiments/)
+[14: https://headless.org/poetry-home.htm](https://headless.org/poetry-home.htm)
+[15: https://headless.org/experiments](https://headless.org/experiments)
diff --git a/content/post/on-the-intellectual-dark-web.md b/content/post/on-the-intellectual-dark-web.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..042f5e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/on-the-intellectual-dark-web.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+title: "On The Intellectual Dark Web"
+date: 2022-04-11T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+To the frustration of ideologues, I reject most politically-oriented labels and I encourage others to do the same. Why? Because the world is extremely complex and most political ideologies are far too simple to explain completely what's going on.
+
+If I say "I'm an X", whether that X stands for democrat, libertarian, anarchist, or some other label, it always always always comes with baggage. When I accept a label, instead of people becoming interested to learn my thoughts, they think they already know. So why must I have a label? If you want to know what I think about any given topic, let's talk about it. I don't want to take this half-assed shortcut of giving you a word that's associated with all these opinions that I don't necessarily hold.
+
+I'm confident about my beliefs on a few topics because I've taken the time to learn a lot about them. Religion needs to be replaced with secular spirituality. Proprietary software is harmful. Cryptocurrency is a disaster. The War on Drugs is a mistake. Free will is incoherent. Extreme wealth inequality is causing a lot of problems. Honesty is almost always the right choice. Etcetera, etcetera.
+
+But then there's this enormous space of topics where I admit I know nothing and if I were to say something about it then I'd be making things up. What's the best economic system? I have no clue. How big of a problem is racism in America? I don't know. How does reality relate to consciousness? I don't know. How do we best fix the ecological and environmental crisis? I don't know and I'm not afraid to admit that.
+
+When I read books or listen to podcasts, I am continually impressed by all the areas of study I know nothing about. I have a healthy appreciation for the sheer number of topics I know nothing about. Our world is a dynamic mess and during a short human life, there's only time to understand a small fraction of it.
+
+People want an ideological framework that explains the world in simple terms. I see it again and again. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but the world isn't simple. No single ideology can explain everything of relevance. It can't. I'd rather admit that I know very little about the world than attach myself to an ideology or set of ideologies that oversimplify.
+
+The only belief I'm fully committed to is that beliefs should be based in evidence. Other than that, I'm willing to reconsider anything, in principle. In practice, I'm a human with limited mental resources and limited time left on this planet. If you start showing me "evidence" that the Earth is flat, I'm not close-minded for not wasting my time re-examining that claim.
+
+I don't see that attitude coming from others though. People cling to these political labels, these ideologies, and they decide ahead of time to never admit that the other side has a point. Conservative-leaning people learn I'm not conservative and they start criticizing Biden, expecting that I'm going to immediately jump to his defense. Well I won't.
+
+I readily admit conservatives have some good criticisms of Biden and I don't feel the urge to defend him. I don't even like him. The only reason I voted for him was because, unlike Trump, he's not a literal fucking fascist and a lesser of two evils argument made perfect sense in 2020. I know Biden is a dumb, ineffective, dime a dozen politician, but at least he acknowledges the problem of climate change. I'll happily admit almost every failure conservatives want to pin on Biden, and none of that makes me regret voting for him, given the alternative.
+
+The reason I bring this up is because politics has become so polarized that as soon as I say I'm not a conservative, conservatives attack me on wanting open/porous borders and all the other things faux news told them progressives think. This is such an unproductive way to have conversations.
+
+If you wanna talk politics with me, let's put the labels aside and stick to specific issues. Don't assume I hold all these beliefs I never espoused. Just treat me like an individual, like an independent, thinking person and I'll treat you with the same respect. Then, just maybe, we'll get somewhere.
+
+# The Intellectual Dark Web
+Interestingly, there's a growing number of people that feel the way I do, who have lost patience with the blind, rank partisanship of all the major news networks on every issue, the uncivil shouting matches, and the lost art of civil discussion. They make up what's now called the "intellectual dark web" (IDW)[1]. I include people like Anthony Magnabosco[2] in the IDW, people who are having civil, fascinating discussions and showing others how to have them.
+
+When you finish reading this, maybe go watch a few of Anthony's Street Epistemology (SE) videos. I plan on making a follow up journal entry dedicated to SE, but I think introducing new techniques like SE into discussions is key. There are people in politics like Andrew Yang[3], who are promoting new ideas for moving forward. The most popular podcaster in the entire world who interviews people from all walks of life, Joe Rogan[4], seems, to my eye, absolutely dedicated to having civil discussions. IDWers like Sam Harris[5] go on major news networks and almost never lose composure. People like Sam are the very definition of nonreactive and they're nigh-impossible to drag into shouting matches because they're just so damn reasonable.
+
+There's a reason podcasters like Joe Rogan are doing so well right now. It's not just that Joe makes an entertaining show. It's also that people are disenchanted with the highly directed, highly controlled, boring partisan conversations. The key distinguishing feature of "members" of the IDW is, whatever their political/ideological affiliations are, they're all committed to civil, honest discussion. I think we need more people out there like that right now.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Intellectual Dark Web](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web)
+[2: Anthony Magnabosco](https://anthonymagnabosco.com/)
+[3: Andrew Yang](https://www.andrewyang.com/)
+[4: Joe Rogan](https://www.joerogan.com/)
+[5: Sam Harris](https://samharris.org/)
diff --git a/content/post/on-transgender-athletes.md b/content/post/on-transgender-athletes.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..05b8415
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/on-transgender-athletes.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "On Transgender Athletes"
+date: 2022-03-27T00:00:01
+draft: false
+---
+I don't really care about professional sports, so I have no personal stake in the trans athlete debate. I consider this issue really low priority. The percentage of professional trans athletes is very tiny and there are bigger problems in society. But I've heard a lot of confusion on the topic, so I'd like to chime in.
+
+I haven't said much about trans issues on this journal yet, so let me just say I have no problem using preferred pronouns. I don't care what others do with their own body. I've worked with trans people before and treated them with the same respect as I would anybody else. But I think in the case of professional athletes, biological sex is more relevant than gender.
+
+The reason I say it's more relevant is that biological men and women have indisputable biological differences that surgery can't change. For some reason, a lot of people on the left seem unwilling to admit this, or they dismiss it as "stereotyping". This is insanity. Men have more muscle mass and faster reaction times. Men's brains are about ten percent larger. There are hundreds more examples and dozens of those are directly relevant to performance in professional sports.
+
+I get it. We want to be inclusive of trans people, and I think we should be. But biological sex is what's relevant to performance in professional sports, not gender identification. So it should be made clear that the separation is one of biological sex, not gender. It's not anti-transgender to not want trans athletes competing with the gender they identify with.
+
+We already separate people in professional sports based on biological differences, like disability.[1] For instance, many extremely intelligent people are autistic. Imagine putting rain man[2] (if he were still alive) up against any neurotypical human in a memory contest. It doesn't matter who the neurotypical is. They're getting crushed every time. Imagine putting Daniel Tammet[3], an autistic savant who learned conversational Icelandic within a week, up against other language learners. It wouldn't be fair. His autistic brain gives him a massive advantage.
+
+And you might say "Aren't all these distinctions arbitrary? Neurotypical people's brains differ. Should less intelligent neurotypicals get their own league too?". And I think that hits on an important point. We choose how to divide people up and there's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree about the divisions.
+
+But biological sex is definitely a meaningful way of differentiating people in sports, and it's unambiguous. You either have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that can be used to determine sex.[4] Biological women who don't want to compete against trans women aren't being anti-transgenderist. They just don't want to get crushed by trans women who, in many cases, have clear biological advantages over them.
+
+Calling such people anti-transgenderists muddles anti-transgenderism. There are people who actually hate transgender people. They give them dirty looks as they walk down the street. They namecall. They talk poorly of them behind their back. Most of these professional athletes, I assume, are not antitransgenderists.
+
+When pro athletes like Ronda Rousey[5] are asked about transgender issues, they don't know what the hell to say. They're athletes. They've spent their lives training, not learning about every little social issue. Just because they're not updated on the most politically sensitive language doesn't make them anti-transgenderist.
+
+If you can't tell the difference a pro athlete using politically insensitive language to advocate against trans women in women's sports and someone who yells "TRAP!" at a trans person passing by on the street, you are the problem. You are the reason we can't have civil discourse about these issues. And you are unprepared to solve problems in the real world.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Special Olympics](https://www.specialolympics.org/)
+[2: Kim Peek](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kim_Peek)
+[3: Daniel Tammet](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet)
+[4: XY Sex-Determination System](https://wikiless.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system)
+[5: Ronda Rousey](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey)
diff --git a/content/post/organization-let-grow.md b/content/post/organization-let-grow.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e2017a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/organization-let-grow.md
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+---
+title: "[Organization] Let Grow"
+date: 2022-04-06T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Paper Guns
+When I was in elementary school, my childhood friend and I became fascinated with paper guns. We rolled up pieces of paper and taped the edges together to form hollow cylinders, which in our minds were gun barrels. We performed a similar procedure to craft the gun handles, taping them to the barrels. For the ammunition, we crumpled up tiny paper balls for bullets. Then we would shoot them at each other by quickly blowing air through the opposite end of the paper gun barrel.
+
+We got pretty good at making paper guns. It was a blast. It was so much in fact that the rest of my grade-school class started imitating us, making their own paper guns and shooting little paper bullets back and forth at each other during indoor recess. That is, until one day when we were both marched down to the principal's office. We were told we made a "bonehead move" and that we weren't allowed to craft any more paper guns in the classroom.
+
+I was the chief architect behind the "chaos" in the classroom and quite satisfied that the other children had taken to my game. I felt accomplished. But when I sat in the chair in the principal's office, I felt ashamed. I wasn't sure exactly what I had done wrong, but a bunch of authoritative-sounding adults decided it was wrong. I now realize that the adults were making a big deal out of what was actually normal childhood play.
+
+# The Swine Flu
+On a different day, I was outside on the playground. Some other student had come up with a pandemic-like game similar to tag. It started with one "infected" person. That person tagged someone else who then became infected. So on and so forth until everyone was infected, and then we restarted. It was a fun twist on the game of tag and unlike tag, it had a definite ending. Given the timing, I think the disease was supposed to be swine flu[1] since that was happening at around the same time I was in grade school.
+
+The playground monitor who watched over us, a woman probably between the ages of thirty and fifty at the time, told us that the swine flu game was no longer allowed. I never learned why not. It didn't make sense to me as a kid. It was just a modified game of tag where we simulated a pandemic that was already of concern anyways.
+
+I now suspect that, if pressed, the playground monitor would have said something to the effect of "that game isn't appropriate", because people were getting sick from the swine flu. But what does "inappropriate" even mean? We were kids with no bad intentions and it was a fun game. I suspect if we called it something different, the monitor wouldn't have had a problem with the game. Looking back, it still makes no sense to me why that game was canceled for us.
+
+# Dragon Ball 
+I have yet another similar story. Some kids get into comics, Harry Potter, Pokemon, or Yu-Gi-Oh!. For me it was Dragon Ball Z. I liked watching Dragon Ball Z. I had the well-taken-care-of action figures. I had the videogames. I watched the new episodes on television when they came on. I loved it.
+
+One day on the playground at recess, I learned a few other kids were into it as well. So naturally, we picked our characters and started fighting. We weren't even hitting each other. We were sticking our hands out with open palms going "Kamehameha!", Goku's signature technique. I pretended to be the feared, ruthless galactic emperor Frieza, and the others holding me in place were pretending to be the good guys. We were all having fun until, again, the playground monitor shut us down and told us we were being too rough, even though no one was hurt.
+
+# The Culture Problem
+As time went on and I grew up, I realized more and more that those childhood experiences of mine weren't merely the product of a few overprotective adults. We in the first world have developed a culture problem. Despite the world being as safe as it has ever been for children, there's this unfounded paranoia parents now have about leaving their children alone for even a second or letting them do anything with the slightest hint of risk. As you see in the case of the paper guns or the swine flu, it doesn't really even have to be remotely risky. It just has to be distantly related to something that is. This is harming both parents and children.
+
+Children are more resilient than they get credit for. They're not nearly as fragile as modern parents make them out to be. They don't need constant supervision. But it's not just the parents' faults. Through my experience working with children, I was pressured to coddle the children, to not let them do anything remotely risky. It wasn't good for me and it wasn't good for them. Instead of allowing children to work out conflicts on their own, I was expected to constantly interfere, under the threat of losing my job. They never learned conflict resolution and I was always exhausted.
+
+This is all in stark contrast to how our grandparents were raised. They weren't babied. They were allowed to be free and independent and have real childhoods without child protective services being called. In the span of a few decades, we've went from allowing children to play freely to coddling them to the point that they learn none of the skills they need to be functional adults.
+
+# Let Grow
+A while back, I found an organization that's working to fight against these absolutely stupid trends robbing children and parents of the lives they deserve. It's called Let Grow[2]. They have a lot of good information on their website, such as recommended books on the subject[3], research[4], advocacy to change the laws surrounding child abuse and neglect[5], and educational resources for schools and communities[6].
+
+I've read through some of Let Grow's stuff and I think their work is vital to solving this problem. I think the problem is real and quite serious. We have to give children their independence back. I'm not saying how children were raised in the old days was perfect. I don't want to idealize the old days, but in terms of childhood independence, it was better. So I just want to promote Let Grow and make everyone aware that there is a movement against this overprotective parenting. For more information about Let Grow, check out their website.
+
+# False Examples of Overprotective Parenting
+Now to play devil's advocate for a moment, I want to consider two things people point to as evidence of overprotective parenting which I don't agree with.
+
+## Young Adults Not Moving Out
+One, young adults are moving out at later ages than they used to, sometimes not at all. I think that's mostly caused by us being broke and not wanting to be wage slaves, not coddling. Conservative media tries to say all us young people are just lazy and irresponsible, but that's bullshit. Most of our grandparents were more economically independent because they could get decent jobs straight out of high school, not because they were more hardworking.
+
+## The Decrease In Spanking
+Not spanking your children is another false example of coddling. Choosing not to hit your child is not coddling them. "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is bad parenting advice. I don't understand why people think it's okay to hit children. If you hit an adult, that's assault and you can go to jail for it, but if you hit a much smaller, less mentally developed human, then that's just discipline? Doesn't make sense to me. Unlike giving your child independence, spanking is associated with negative psychological outcomes.
+
+Let Grow should be about children gaining more independence and parents and educators being free to give them that independence. It shouldn't be about parents having the right to spank their kids. As I said before, parenting from the old days wasn't ideal either. More parents and teachers spanked children and that was wrong. Just because we went too far overprotecting children doesn't mean we should go back to hitting as a form of discipline.
+
+# Conclusion
+Based on what I've seen of Let Grow, they're doing a good job promoting childhood independence and I think they should stick to that. More childhood independence seems to be a very widely supported goal which shouldn't be diluted by taking public positions on the work ethic of millenials or the ethics of spanking.
+
+If you have extra money, please send a donation to Let Grow[7] to help end helicopter parenting, restore childhood independence, and make parenting more bearable again. Thanks.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic](https://wikiless.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic)
+[2: Let Grow](https://letgrow.org)
+[3: Let Grow - Books](https://letgrow.org/our-books/)
+[4: Let Grow - Research](https://letgrow.org/resources/essential-reading-list/)
+[5: Let Grow - Legislative Toolkit](https://letgrow.org/legislative-toolkit/)
+[6: Let Grow - Educational Resources](https://letgrow.org/program/educational-resources/)
+[7: Let Grow - Donate](https://letgrow.org/program/donate/)
diff --git a/content/post/oxen-security-fail.md b/content/post/oxen-security-fail.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0ab06d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/oxen-security-fail.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Oxen Security Fail"
+date: 2021-09-28T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Lately I've been doing research on the Oxen Privacy Tech Foundation and their various projects. On 19 September while looking at Session, I noticed getsession.org was missing the Strict-Transport-Security header[1]. So I decided to also check the security headers for oxen.io[2], lokinet.org[3], and optf.ngo[4] and what do you know, they're also missing HTTP security headers.
+
+The download links for each project are all vulnerable to network-level man-in-the-middle attacks[5]. They also load external resources with no CSP header. They're all missing X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, and a Permissions-Policy. This is the web security equivalent of leaving your front door open.
+
+When I noticed the lack of security headers on getsession.org, I emailed support@getsession.org informing them of the issue the same day. Over a week later, it's still not fixed and I have no response. How long has their website been insecure like this? I'm left wondering whether I should take OPTF and their work seriously. How can crypto projects focused primarily on privacy and security overlook basic web security? OPTF has some explaining to do.
+
+Their sites may have other security vulnerabilities I'm unaware of. I'm no web pentester and I have no interest in pursuing it further. I may ask a pentester friend of mine to look into it for me. I'm going to contact OPTF directly through their contact form[6] about what all I've already found. I'll update this entry later once they respond.
+
+# Update (2021-10-02):
+I received a response the same day I contacted the OPTF. They let me know my original email to Session went to spam which is why they didn't see it. It probably got filtered because I put "URGENT" in the subject line. The issue was resolved by the next day and the CTO (Kee Jefferys) thanked me for the feedback.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: getsession.org security headers](https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgetsession.org&followRedirects=on)
+[2: oxen.io security headers](https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Foxen.io&followRedirects=on)
+[3: lokinet.org security headers](https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Flokinet.org&followRedirects=on)
+[4: optf.ngo security headers](https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Foptf.ngo&followRedirects=on)
+[5: man-in-the-middle attack](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack)
+[6: optf.ngo contact form](https://optf.ngo/contact-us/)
diff --git a/content/post/paying-close-attention-to-experience.md b/content/post/paying-close-attention-to-experience.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..38af1b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/paying-close-attention-to-experience.md
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+---
+title: "Paying Close Attention to Experience"
+date: 2022-02-05T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Explaining Color to a Blind-From-Birth Person
+I was watching this video of a child trying to explain to a blind-from-birth man what color is like. Everybody knows it's an impossible task and inevitably the child soon learns this out as well.
+
+One can explain to a sightless person which objects have which colors, the wavelength of each color, every color's cultural significance, and give analogies to what it's like to see color. But no matter how much one tries to explain it, the unsighted person will still be missing the most important aspect of color: the experience of seeing it.
+
+No amount of facts about color seems to add up to the experience. If given the choice between knowing every fact about a color and having the ability to see it, I don't know anybody who would choose the former. Knowledge just doesn't replace experience.
+
+I'm reminded of a relevant quote from the movie Good Will Hunting which gets at the heart of knowledge versus experience. It's fairly lengthy so I'll just link to the clip[1].
+
+# Explaining Color to a Sighted Person
+Everybody knows you can't explain color to a blind person but people don't realize you can't really describe color to sighted people either. Think of a young child. Someone else says the name of the color and points to it. After some repetition, the child learns the names of common colors.
+
+During this process, no information about color is communicated to the child. The sighted child can already see color. They only learn which words corresponds to which colors. So how does one know that the child sees the same red and that they aren't just using the same word to talk about a different color?
+
+How would one communicate color itself rather than just the agreed upon name of the color? It seems impossible. Vsauce has an excellent video about this titled "Is Your Red The Same as My Red?"[2]. He wonders if we can ever communicate what a color is.
+
+Philosophers like Daniel Denette suggest that color might not be ineffable. Perhaps we just don't have the language to communicate color yet. If only we had precise enough words, using sufficiently many of them, we could communicate the experience of seeing color. I'm skeptical, but for now color is ineffable in every human language. All we can do is agree on common words.
+
+# We Are All Alone In Our Minds
+And this ineffability of experience also generalizes to things besides color. I'll give a few examples.
+
+Wave your hand back and forth. How are you doing that? Try to pay close attention to what you're doing when you move your hand. How are you moving it? You can point out which muscles are expanding and contracting. You know objectively that the brain is sending signals to the muscles to cause them to move in the right ways.
+
+But none of that captures the subjective experience of moving your hand. Words can't seem to capture what that's like. If you're ever asked to explain how you move, all you can do is throw your hands up. (pun intended) You don't have the faintest idea how you're doing it. All you can do is resort to analogies and facts.
+
+We have no way to know if your red is the same as my red, or more generally, if your experience of anything is the same as mine. I cannot climb into your consciousness to see if your experience matches mine and you cannot climb into mine. We're all alone in our own subjectivity.
+
+# Mapping Subjective Experiences To Objective Reality
+If you ask someone who lacks any understanding of anatomy how their hand moves, what will they say? Nothing about the subjective experience of moving your hand offers any clue that the muscles in it are activated by electrical signals from your brain. Yet objectively, we know that's what's happening.
+
+We know the brain is composed of billions of neurons and synapses. Yet conscious experience offers no clue. Isn't it strange that subjective experience doesn't hint at these objective anatomic realities?
+
+# The Explanatory Gap
+Although we may know certain processes in objective reality correspond to certain experiences, we don't know why. Why does pain feel the way it feels and not some other way? Some philosophers think we can never fully account for this. They think the explanatory gap[3] cannot be bridged. Others insist it can.
+
+# Paying Close Attention to Experience
+These questions are fascinating for philosophers, but the nature of one's own consciousness is in principle of interest to everybody. I think people believe it's not interesting only because they don't/can't pay close enough attention to notice their experience.
+
+Pay attention to your field of view. Not to any particular object within it, but to your field of view itself. What shape is your field of view? Is there a boundary or is it boundless?
+
+Can you tell that you have two eyes by looking at your field of view or is it just one continuous uninterrupted space? You have two optic blind spots, but can you see them? Do you have two holes in your vision or is your brain filling that in before you see them?
+
+When you feel sensations in your body, how is it that you know where they are? How can you tell the difference between someone tapping you on your left shoulder versus your right? What is it about the sensation that lets you know where it is?
+
+Based only on your subjective experience, do you have a head? You can picture yourself from behind with a head, but where is your head in your experience? You look down and see your torso and legs. You can touch your finger to your forehead, but the tip of your finger just disappears and you feel a sensation. So where is your head?
+
+Look in the mirror and find a body with a head and eyes looking at you. What is mirror-you looking at? Bringing the mirror closer, you can see only one eye. This is what you look like up close. Even closer with a microscope, you look like individual cells. Looking from increasingly far distances, you are a town, a country, the Earth, solar system, or the Milky Way.
+
+Do you ever move? Or is it everything else that moves? When you walk down the sidewalk, are you walking yourself or is the world streaming by?
+
+Do you have a past or future or only an eternal present? Memories of the past and thoughts of the future are replayed, but when and where do these interruptions occur?
+
+Do you age? Go watch the ticking of a clock. Now feel the beating of your heart. Where are these two processes occurring? Does the space in which they're occurring age? Did it have a beginning or end?
+
+Going by only your present experience, not your memory or imagination, what does it feel like to be you? Close your eyes and trace every part of your body with your attention. Can you make out your precise shape or does it feel like a cloud of sensations? Do you notice every part of your body at once or only points of tension?
+
+Pay attention to the very next thought that comes to mind. What is its origin? Where is its destination? Imagine a green alien with antennas. Now imagine a yellow star. How are you doing that? Is the star vivid or blurry? Can you replay a song? What's the difference between playing a song and thinking?
+
+Do your thoughts and feelings leave a mark on awareness? Can they perturb awareness? Can something someone says change you? Do you create your thoughts and emotions or do they just happen? Where is your personality?
+
+Now breathe manually. How does it feel different from breathing automatically? Recall something you did. Now recall something that happened to you. How do you know the difference between what you do and what happens to you? Does it feel different? If yes, how?
+
+Repeat a word or phrase aloud over and over. Do you stop hearing the word/phrase and just hear the sounds? Does the same result happen if you repeat the word in your mind?
+
+# The Mind Is A Laboratory
+I'm offering these experiments to put you into the headspace of paying close, unobstructed attention to your own experience. I don't expect that you'll have definitive answers to all these questions. And besides, that's not really the point. I'm just trying to get you curious about own experience.
+
+Your mind is your own personal laboratory where you can perform experiments. For instance, you can try multiplying two two-digit numbers in your head and observe what happens as you try to do that. Does observing the calculation make it more difficult? Do you see the numbers visually in your head or how are you keeping track of them?
+
+You can make up whatever experiments you want and perform them. I call them "mindsperiments". Through repetition, you can make them more scientific and confirm hypothesis about your mind. The only limit is your imagination.
+
+# The Mind Is A New Frontier
+When people talk about "the final frontier", they're usually talking about places that are far away and mysterious, like beyond the Milky Way galaxy. But the mind is also a new frontier for each of us. The problem isn't that it's too far though. It's the most local phenomenon of all and yet we're subjectively unaware of much of anything it does.
+
+There's all sorts of unconscious mental machinery going on in the background that we're not normally aware of. A fish living in water its whole life doesn't know what water is. However, some humans are aware of the unconscious mental machinery, because they lack it.
+
+## Unconscious Mental Machinery
+Some people's fusiform gyrus[4], the part of the brain responsible for facial recognition, is impaired. This causes face blindness[5], or the inability to recognize facial features. It's hard for most of us to even imagine not having that ability because it's not something we notice. Nonetheless facial recognition is something we're all doing.
+
+People with Autism[6] lack the ability to identify others' emotions. Most humans have emotion recognition as a metaphorical built-in API[7]. If autistic people can identify others' emotions at all, they do it through very deliberate thinking. It happens at the level of conscious effort rather than through the metaphorical API.
+
+Think about language. You effortlessly convert your thoughts into speech. And you easily understand others' speech. Neither of these are trivial tasks and yet you do them without even trying. These processes happen "underneath" conscious awareness.
+
+When I'm learning a new language, at first I don't process the speech as fast as my native language. I hear a phrase, I'm confused for a few moments and then suddenly, I understand. There's a subjectively observable delay in listening comprehension.
+
+That mysterious process where I go from not understanding to that "Aha!" moment is utterly fascinating to me. No matter how many times I observe it happen it has remained a mystery to me exactly what happens during that transition.
+
+The point is people are normally not aware of unconscious mental processes unless they're lacking, but it's possible to be much more aware, to have a totally different relationship to your own mind than the one you have now.
+
+A hundred thousand years ago if you didn't know which berries were poisonous, you ate the wrong ones and died as a consequence of environmental ignorance. The same can be said of your mind. It's your mental environment. If you're unfamiliar, how do you expect to survive and thrive?
+
+# Know Thyself
+When we have negative thoughts and emotions rather than positive ones, we assume this is our mind working against us. We feel at war with ourselves. And we want to change our minds so that stops happening. Well if you want to change your mind, it helps to first take stock of it.
+
+What is possible for you? What mental equipment are you dealing with? Most of us don't have the slightest clue what we're capable of. We have a limited partial picture of our minds at any given time and most of us aren't even paying attention to that. How can we expect to change our minds when we understand so little about them?
+
+Until you practice introspection or some equivalent, you're just flying blind. You've learned to avoid intense pain and pursue temporary pleasure, but beyond that you don't know what you're doing. You're still vaguely dissatisfied most of the time and you assume that's the best that's available for you.
+
+Well don't assume. Instead, pay attention to experience and accept what you find. Treat your mind like a laboratory and run experiments. Instead of seeing life as an obstacle, think of it as a teacher and learn its lessons. Treat each moment as the only one, not as preparation for the next and don't be afraid to let go.
+
+# Trust Thyself
+Above all, trust yourself. If what I say here doesn't match your subjective experience, then disregard me. I don't know what it's like to be you. What's true about my mind is different from what's true about yours and you'll only learn about yourself through careful observation, not by reading my journal. I'm just trying to inspire you into taking the first step and hopefully following all the way through till the end.
+
+"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." - Siddharta Gautama
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Good Will Hunting Clip](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=6vXbUPnWA1U)
+[2: VSauce: Is Your Red The Same as My Red?](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=evQsOFQju08)
+[3: Explanatory Gap](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Explangap)
+[4: Fusiform Gyrus](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fusiform_gyrus)
+[5: Prosopagnosia](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia)
+[6: Autism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Autism)
+[7: API](https://wikiless.org/wiki/API)
diff --git a/content/post/podcast-the-key-to-trumps-appeal.md b/content/post/podcast-the-key-to-trumps-appeal.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1fd4526
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/podcast-the-key-to-trumps-appeal.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+title: "[Podcast] The Key to Trump's Appeal"
+date: 2021-01-07T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+There are many things I don't agree with but I understand the motivation behind them. Religion is an example. I am not a religious person, but I can easily see the appeal of religion. Religion offers consolation for death anxiety. People need to feel like their lives have meaning. Religion offers purpose. People want to believe there's something more to life than everyday conscious experience because frankly, for lots of people, everyday experience just isn't good enough. Everyday experience is dissatisfaction, disappointment and dukkha[1]. People need hope that "this" isn't all there is. Religion gives people that hope. Even if you're nonreligious, it's not hard to see why religion appeals to people.
+
+Donald Trump's appeal to half of Americans on the other hand is something that has puzzled me for years. It's not that he doesn't appeal to me. It's that I haven't been able to comprehend how he appeals to anyone, especially such a large fraction of American voters. I'm not alone in the confusion. Sam Harris[2] has also admitted to struggling to understand Trump's appeal.
+
+I've made many inquiries to Trump supporters about what they find appealing about him. I get a wide variety of answers but none of the answers given, even taken altogether, seem to account for his appeal. Conversations I've had with Trump supporters have made me disinclined to take their word for why they support him. Here's an example of how one such conversation typically goes:
+
+Myself: "What makes Trump appeal to you?"
+Trump Supporter: "He wants to build a wall."
+Myself: "If he didn't would you still vote for him?"
+Trump Supporter: "Yes."
+Myself: "So the wall isn't the reason he appeals to you. At least it's not the only reason. What else makes Trump appeal to you?"
+Trump Supporter: "He tells the truth."
+Myself: "Here's concrete examples of him contradicting himself." (I show examples)
+Trump Supporter: "So? All politicians lie."
+Myself: "So truthtelling isn't the real reason he appeals to you either. What's his strongest appeal?"
+Trump Supporter: "He runs the country like a business. He's a businessman, not a politician."
+Myself: "But he routinely blames everyone else for his failures. In a business setting, doing that gets you fired. So he's not running the country like a business."
+Trump Supporter: "I don't care."
+Myself: "What if he kicked a baby?"
+Trump Supporter: "He wouldn't do that."
+
+...and so on and so forth. So you can see the reason I'm not inclined to take Trump supporters at their word on why Trump is appealing. Even when I remove their stated reasons for supporting him it makes zero difference. They still find him appealing. I don't think they're purposely misdirecting me or being deceptive. It's pretty clear there's something else going on.
+
+Studies in the field of psychology have shown that the color of the walls in a room, the temperature of a coffee offered to test subjects, and the wording of a question can all influence the outcome of an experiment. But the test subjects never cite those things as significant factors in their decision making despite the statistics indicating they were significant influences. The same sort of phenomenon is occurring when Trump supporters explain why Trump is appealing. The reasons they give are reasons they believe they find him appealing, but not the actual reasons. There are underlying psychological influences at play.
+
+Sam Harris has a fascinating take on Trump's appeal which suggests what one of those underlying psychological influences might be. I'll let him do the talking:
+
+[Video Link][3]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Dukkha](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Dukkha)
+[2: https://samharris.org](https://samharris.org)
+[3: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=j3xBUNIkA_c&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=j3xBUNIkA_c&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/podcast-why-trump-is-unfit-for-office.md b/content/post/podcast-why-trump-is-unfit-for-office.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b7423b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/podcast-why-trump-is-unfit-for-office.md
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: "[Podcast] Why Trump is Unfit For Office"
+date: 2021-01-07T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+In his Making Sense[1] podcast Sam Harris[2] talks about why Donald Trump is unfit for public office. For reference, these clips come from Making Sense episodes #38[3] and #45. They were recorded before the 2016 presidential election but the past 4 years have only shown how right Harris was in his judgement of Trump. I haven't seen anyone else speak with the same clarity and completeness about Trump as Harris, so that's why I picked these clips.
+
+I had a very similar if not the same opinion of Trump 4 years ago. I immediately recognized him as a narcissistic unintelligent con man unfit for public office. If I had expressed my opinion at the time in writing it probably would have sounded much like these clips from the Making Sense podcast. Although much has happened since 2016, I still find these clips worth sharing.
+
+[Links Below]
+Episode #38[4] (31 min)
+Episode #45[5] (15 min)
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://samharris.org/podcast](https://samharris.org/podcast)
+[2: https://samharris.org](https://samharris.org)
+[3: https://samharris.org/podcasts/the-end-of-faith-sessions-2/](https://samharris.org/podcasts/the-end-of-faith-sessions-2/)
+[4: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=jLvabd32jDA&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1&amp;start=544&amp;end=2366](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=jLvabd32jDA&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1&amp;start=544&amp;end=2366)
+[5: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=3yBGE80covk&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=3yBGE80covk&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/private-online-shopping.md b/content/post/private-online-shopping.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..91668be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/private-online-shopping.md
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+---
+title: "Private Online Shopping"
+date: 2021-05-12T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Preface
+6 months ago at the end of my post Avoiding Consumer Surveillance[1], I hinted at a post on anonymous online shopping. This is that post. As a heads up, I'll be focusing exclusively on web marketplaces since alternatives like Openbazaar are currently ghost towns.
+
+Sometimes it's wisest to focus on how to reduce the harm caused by doing something rather than trying to get people to stop doing it. So, in this post, I'm going to focus on harm reduction. Given that everyone isn't going to stop online shopping, how can it be done in a way that minimizes the harm to privacy?
+
+# Privacy Threats
+To reduce harm to privacy, I'm going to evaluate each threat one by one and offer mitigations to it.
+
+## Real Name and Address
+Giving out your real name and address is a privacy threat that doesn't exist when interacting with a cashier in a physical store. As long as you're not using a dis-loyalty program, you never give the cashier your name or address. So they can't identify you that way. The online marketplace is a different story. It asks for both.
+
+### Mitigation - Give a Fake Name
+There's a simple solution to the name problem. Give a fake name instead. It's legal and packages don't necessarily rely on names for shipping anyway. That said, there may be some potential negative consequences that could happen:
+* The package could get lost.
+* If several people live at the address, the package could be given to the wrong person.
+* The courier may fail to locate the recipient. The package will be sent back to sender or held for pickup.
+* Signing for a package won't work since there's no name. This could complicate delivery.
+* The courier may become suspicious and flag your address. This could cause your mail to be monitored.
+
+The potential consequences might not present a problem for you or they might be a dealbreaker. It just depends on your own personal situation. I have 2 pieces of general advice:
+* Always give your real name if you order something you can't afford to lose in transit.
+* Always give your real name if you give your real address. If you give your real address and not your real name, you're only increasing the anonymity set of who ordered the package by a few. It's not worth the trouble.
+
+Other than that, you'll have to make your own choice if the privacy is worth the risk.
+
+### Mitigation - Give a Different Address
+The address problem isn't so easily solved. The address isn't redundant information. It's actually used for shipping. The cheapest mitigation is to use a geographically close friend's address for the package. Have them receive the package on your behalf. While possible in theory, there are several reasons this may be a bad idea, so I don't recommend it.
+
+Instead, you should pay for a proper mailbox service. A mailbox service can offer a real address that you can use online and a place to store your package until you go pick it up. The mailbox service may be willing to accept packages with a pseudonym, fake name, or no name at all, as well as your real name. Some mailbox services may hold your package and require you to show ID to receive it, which could get complicated if the package name and your real name don't match. This is why you should ask about their protocol for non-matching names before you register with the mailbox service. If you can make it work, a fake name combined with a mailbox service can fully anonymize you to the seller.
+
+## Mailbox Service's Records
+Keep in mind that, if you choose to use a mailbox service, you aren't anonymous to that service. It's common for mailbox services to keep digital records of the sender, their address, the receiver, the type of package, weight, size and other information for months, years or even indefinitely. If the mailbox service ever has a data breach, the data will be available to everyone. Using a mailbox service is still better than the online marketplace knowing your name and address because at least the mailbox service doesn't know what you bought. Almost all online marketplaces automatically share your data with third parties. By using a mailbox service, you're not immediately identified, but the mailbox service's records still pose a privacy issue.
+
+### Mitigation - Choose a Service With a Short Data Retention Period
+Some mailbox services keep records only for a few months. Others keep records for years. For some, how long the record is kept depends on the type of package and if it has tracking or requires a signature. The only way to find this stuff out is by doing your research and asking questions about their mail record retention policy before you register. It's important to choose the service that keeps records for the least amount of time.
+
+## Email Address
+So you've given a fake name and your mailbox service's address which has a short data retention policy. But now, the marketplace wants your email. But giving out your email is nearly as identifying as giving out your real name. What to do?
+
+### Mitigation - Give a Throwaway Email
+Don't give a fake email. You may be required to confirm the purchase over email or receive some other important information that way. This mitigation is comparatively easy: Simply create a one-time use email address for the purchase and never reuse it. Do this every time you make a purchase.
+
+## Phone Number
+The bad news is the marketplace might still require a phone number. The good news is marketplaces don't usually require phone number verification for buyers.
+
+### Mitigation - Give a Fake Phone Number
+Since marketplaces don't verify the number, you can make one up. The marketplace will probably only text it details of your order. I don't know of an online marketplace that forces buyers to verify their phone number. If you run across one, my advice is find a different marketplace. There's plenty out there.
+
+## Browser Fingerprinting and IP Address
+If you made it this far, then you've managed to not explicitly give out any personal information. Unfortunately, because the web is a privacy disaster, this isn't enough. There are dozens of other ways to leak your identity without it being obvious. For example, many online shopping sites have proprietary Javascript and cookies which facilitate tracking buyers across the web. Your IP address is also identifying information which can be used to deanonymize your purchases. But do not fear, for Tor Browser is here!
+
+### Mitigation - Use Tor Browser
+The best way to avoid browser fingerprinting and leaking your IP address is installing Tor Browser[2]. Tor Browser protects you from browser fingerprinting while making it very hard for the site to figure out your real IP address. Use Tor Browser on the highest security setting that doesn't break site functionality. If "safest" mode breaks the website, try "safer". If "safer" mode breaks the site, use "standard". I also recommend using the LibreJS[3] addon to prevent proprietary Javascript analytics scripts from running in your browser.
+
+## Tor is Blocked
+If you can't access the site on the "standard" security setting in Tor Browser, then it probably blocks Tor exit nodes. Some sites do allow you to browse while using Tor, but won't let you purchase anything. You just have to find out which ones are Tor friendly and which aren't by trial and error. If a site isn't Tor-friendly, all is not lost. There is still hope with Proxychains.
+
+### Mitigation - Use Proxychains
+If you still insist on using that website for your purchase, you can configure proxychains[4] to hide the fact that you're using Tor while still getting the privacy benefits of the Tor Browser. Just search for the IP address and port number of an open proxy.
+
+If you've properly configured Proxychains and Tor Browser is still not letting you visit the site, then most likely the site does some kind of anti-spam browser fingerprinting to determine if you're a real user and Tor browser is getting you flagged as a bot since it's resistant to fingerprinting. You could use a different browser proxied through Tor, but at this point I'd just look for the item on a different website. If the website requires browser fingerprinting, then you can't expect to buy anything anonymously.
+
+## Payment Method
+I wish I could say that's all because it feels like the overhead for making a private purchase is getting outrageous. But there is one more privacy threat to overcome. That is the payment method. The payment method more than anything is going to eliminate online web stores from our list of private marketplaces. Here's a non-exhaustive list of the payment methods that you have to throw out the window when it comes to privacy:
+* debit card
+* credit card
+* Paypal
+* Google Wallet
+* Stripe
+* Apple Pay
+* Amazon Payments
+* Square Cash App
+* Skrill
+* Venmo
+* WePay
+* And more...
+
+Any payment system that identifies you can't be used for privacy. Until something like GNU Taler[5] becomes popular, we're left with 1 option that offers real payment anonymity: cryptocurrency.
+
+### Mitigation - Monero
+Since most places require some form of ID verification to buy cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency ledgers allow transactions to be easily traced, no cryptocurrency is suited for an anonymous purchase, except for 1: Monero[6] or XMR. It's so private that the IRS is offering $625,000 to anyone who can crack it[7]. You can acquire Monero through centralized or peer-to-peer exchanges. The great thing about Monero is you don't need to acquire it anonymously to make an anonymous purchase with it. Coins are untraceable and transactions are unlinkable. Feel free to acquire the Monero however is most convenient for you. Localmonero.co is a solid option that doesn't require any identification or proprietary Javascript and it has a Tor onion service. Just remember to store the coins on the Monero wallet on your own machine, not on an exchange. Also I recommend proxying the Monero client through Tor to prevent transactions being linked to your IP address.
+
+Unfortunately few online stores actually accept Monero. Bitcoin still reigns supreme. Luckily there are coin swap services online that accept Monero and pay out Bitcoin. Kilos' KSwap[8] (WARNING: NSFW) is one example. It requires no sign up, no Javascript and it's a Tor onion service.
+
+The hidden fees are of course embedded in the exchange rate. When you go to buy Monero, you're going to take a hit and when you pay to convert it to Bitcoin, you're going to take a hit. In the end, you may end up paying 20% more than you otherwise would have had you just bought the item with a debit card. That's not even including the costs involved in a mailbox service. But that's just the price of your privacy if you insist on buying online. There's no easy way around it.
+
+## Third Parties
+Many sites you run into have no problem giving your IP address and other identifying information to third parties. If you follow all the steps above, you don't have anything to worry about. But if you skip some steps or you just want to be thorough, you should still take note of the online shop's privacy policy.
+
+### Mitigation - Read the Privacy Policy
+Every online shop has its own privacy policy. Read it carefully before you make a purchase so that you understand what's going to happen to the data you provide. If you provide all fake data, then the privacy policy doesn't affect you. However, if you provide any identifying information during a purchase, even non-obvious identifying information like your real IP address, you should read the privacy policy. Just be aware of how the data you provided is going to be used.
+
+## Conclusion
+At this point, you're probably thinking I've wasted my time writing all this. I understand that 99.9% of people aren't going to even attempt to do any of these steps. They're going to use Goolag Chrome browser with their real IP address with 1000 tracking cookies providing all their real information and paying with a credit card. I know this.
+
+The primary purpose of writing all this is not actually to teach you how to shop online anonymously. It's expensive, tiresome and tedious. The primary purpose of this post is to show you just how impractical it is to shop online in privacy. The goal is by showing you how far you need to go to have real privacy shopping online, you'll decide to buy things in person with cash instead, when possible.
+
+Compared to walking into a store, paying with cash and rejecting the rewards program, the process I've outlined for getting equivalent privacy online is a nightmare to go through. This post could have been 2 sentences long:
+
+> "Private online shopping isn't practical. Buy in person with cash instead."
+
+But, in writing all this out, I think I've made a really strong case for just buying things in person with cash when possible. If it's not possible to purchase in person, you now have some tips for staying anonymous while online shopping.
+
+Remember that privacy isn't binary. You can follow as many of my advices as you're willing to. Don't give up completely just because you can't follow every piece of advice. If you do nothing more than start reading the privacy policies and becoming more aware of how your data is used, that's a plus in my book. As always, thank you for reading if you made it this far and feel free to send a donation if you think my posts are valuable.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Avoiding Consumer Surveillance](../../../../2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance/)
+[2: Tor Browser](https://www.torproject.org/download/)
+[3: LibreJS](https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/)
+[4: Proxychains](http://proxychains.sf.net/)
+[5: GNU Taler](https://taler.net)
+[6: Monero](https://www.getmonero.org/)
+[7: IRS Offers $625k to Break Monero](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/09/14/irs-will-pay-up-to-625000-if-you-can-crack-monero-other-privacy-coins/)
+[8: KSwap](http://mlyusr6htlxsyc7t2f4z53wdxh3win7q3qpxcrbam6jf3dmua7tnzuyd.onion/coinswap)
diff --git a/content/post/psa-you-can-remove-your-property-from-street-view-services.md b/content/post/psa-you-can-remove-your-property-from-street-view-services.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..449098e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/psa-you-can-remove-your-property-from-street-view-services.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "PSA: You Can Remove Your Property From Street View Services"
+date: 2022-03-14T00:00:02
+draft: false
+---
+There are popular online street view services that offer detailed pictures of people's properties. These services can be used for good purposes, but they can also be used by stalkers to:
+
+* Figure out which car you drive
+* Find the entrances to your property
+* Search for an easy way to break in
+* Check if you have security cameras or not
+* Look for places to hide around your home
+
+There are several valid reasons besides theft and stalking that one might want to have their property removed from street view services.
+
+All the online guides for how to get your property removed require using the street view service. I can't recommend that method because they all require executing proprietary JavaScript. As an alternative method, you can call the service by phone and request them to remove or blur out your property. There's a list of street view services listed by location on Wikipedia[1]. You can use it to determine who you need to contact.
+
+While this won't stop the state from spying on you, ordinary remote stalkers will be thwarted. All you have to do is simply ask popular consumer street view companies to remove or blur out your property.
+
+I can personally attest that this works. Companies will blur out your property and it's probably in their best interest to do so. It's better for them to oblige the few people who want their property blurred out rather than risk bad press and legal trouble.
+
+Companies don't want the public to associate their services with stalkers and thieves, so they give themselves an out by allowing people to remove their property. However it's not in their best interest to advertize this fact because their service is less useful the more people that request their property to be removed.
+
+And that's why I'm writing this entry. I just want to make people aware that removing their property from street view services is an option. All these street view services should be opt-in by law. But, unless and until that happens, everybody should be aware that they can opt out.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: List of Street View Services](https://wikiless.org/wiki/List_of_street_view_services)
diff --git a/content/post/psychedelics-are-a-rite-of-passage.md b/content/post/psychedelics-are-a-rite-of-passage.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a9553c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/psychedelics-are-a-rite-of-passage.md
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+title: "Psychedelics Are a Rite of Passage"
+date: 2022-02-28T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Before I discuss psychedelics in this context, I feel obligated to issue a few disclaimers.
+
+# Psychedelics Are Not a Panacea
+The first one is psychedelics will not solve the world's problems nor everyone's personal problems. Some people that take psychedelics do huge damage to the world.[1] Some have psychotic breaks. Since the scientific/skeptic community largely dismisses spiritual experiences, some people are drawn to pseudospiritual woo-woo[2] for answers after using them. Psychedelics are clearly not a magic pill.
+
+Psychedelics are also not for everyone. They have serious downsides. People with a family history of mental illness or present mental illness should practice extreme caution when using psychedelics. Even mentally healthy people can lose their minds after taking psychedelics. All psychonauts should be aware of that.
+
+I don't care how mentally strong you think you are. Do not underestimate psychedelics. They are powerful introspective tools. I don't believe full doses can be used safely at parties. Being around lots of dancing strangers as your mind is picked apart by magic mushrooms is not safe and it's not respecting the substance. Psychedelics must be approached with respect and caution, every time.
+
+As a final disclaimer, be aware of the legal risks of taking psychedelics. Thanks to the failed War on Drugs and the thugs[3] who wage it, psychedelics are illegal everywhere, with few exceptions. When you acquire psychedelics for consumption, you become a criminal. And the legal repercussions are far heavier than failing to stop at a stop sign. Be prepared for the worst.
+
+# Psychedelics Are a Rite of Passage
+With the relevant disclaimers now out of the way, let's talk about psychedelics as a rite of passage.
+
+Psychedelics have undeniable, life-transforming benefits. They offer a way of looking at the world, and ourselves, that we normally don't have access to. Many people who try psychedelics, myself included, rank their experiences while tripping among their top life experiences.
+
+Terence McKenna, American ethnobotanist and advocate for psychedelic drugs, once said:
+
+> "I think of going to the grave without having a psychedelic experience like going to the grave without ever having sex. It means that you never figured out what it is all about..." - Terence McKenna
+
+While I don't think sex is comparable to psychedelics, Terence did have a point. Healthy people who abstain from psychedelic drugs are missing out on an important life experience.
+
+If someone doesn't want to take psychedelics because of lack of interest, I suspect they might not see the value anyways. Maybe those people aren't missing out. But when someone abstains from psychedelics because they drank the D.A.R.E.[4] Kool-Aid and they think all illegal drugs are nothing but bad, I feel bad for them. They might be missing out on some of the most important experiences in their life thanks to ignorance and stupidity.
+
+If I ever have offspring, which I don't plan on, I hope they never try heroin, methamphetamine, or give themselves brain damage with large quantities of cough syrup. But if they go to the grave without ever using psychedelic drugs, I will feel that they missed out on one of the most important experiences life has to offer.
+
+# Education And Legalization
+The stigma against psychedelics and their users needs to go away. It needs to be replaced with a balanced assessment of each drug's benefits and downsides. Thankfully there are a lot of organizations spreading good information about psychedelics since obviously public education is failing hard at it.
+
+With any luck, psychedelics will be legalized or at least decriminalized in the coming years and people who want to explore their minds will be free to do so without being demonized for curiosity.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Steve Jobs](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs)
+[2: Woo-woo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo)
+[3: Thug](https://stallman.org/glossary.html#thug)
+[4: D.A.R.E. Indoctrination Program](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Reception)
diff --git a/content/post/raising-the-bar-on-privacy.md b/content/post/raising-the-bar-on-privacy.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..01d3df1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/raising-the-bar-on-privacy.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+title: "Raising the Bar on Privacy"
+date: 2020-11-14T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+There's a common attitude many people have regarding privacy. I'm not talking about nothing to hide[1], although that is also a very common attitude. It has been refuted ad nauseum[2] by privacy advocates, so I won't do it again here. I'm talking about the feeling people have that the corporate/government surveillance state[3] (Big Brother) will collect their data one way or another no matter what, so there's no point in even trying to avoid mass surveillance. Privacy is already dead. Mass surveillance and its long-term negative side-effects[4] are inevitable. That's the attitude of so many people and it's disappointing. So, I'm going to offer an alternative way to think about privacy and surveillance.
+
+First, let's be clear. Privacy is not just a personal preference. It's not just a social necessity either. It's a biological necessity as basic as breathing. It allows us all to be human. It is the right to be imperfect. Therefore, it must be protected. There is no point in asking if it's too late to stop mass surveillance because there's no alternative to curtailing it. It must be stopped. Democracy can only withstand so much surveillance[5]. Mass surveillance in its current form and true democracy cannot coexist indefinitely. Surveillance tools combined with AI[6] will only get more powerful as time passes. To put it frankly, we are either going to reign in mass surveillance or democracy will perish. We have to reject the defeatist excuse that we've already lost to mass surveillance and so we shouldn't even try to restore privacy. That's just a self-fulfilling prophecy[7].
+
+The alternative, yet realistic way of thinking (as opposed to defeatism) that I want to introduce is what I call "raising the bar on privacy". It's a very simple idea. Maybe Big Brother can still get our data even if we take steps to increase our privacy. Even if the defeatist is right that our data can or will be collected anyway, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it as difficult as possible. Let's not hand over our data on a silver platter at least, right? If enough of us take steps to increase our privacy, we will make it more difficult and more expensive for Big Brother to collect our data. We collectively "raise the bar on privacy". Even if we can't fully insulate our own lives from Big Brother, if we can force Big Brother to resort to the more powerful means of surveillance (think 0-day exploits[8], targeted surveillance[9], hardware/firmware backdoors[10]) more often instead of the low-hanging fruit of collecting our data from big tech companies, then our society will gain several benefits:
+
+1. As privacy-friendly tools gain popularity, people that use them won't become especially "interesting" to Big Brother anymore.
+2. The desire for privacy won't be viewed as a cause for suspicion of wrongdoing, but instead as a basic biological need that everyone is entitled to.
+3. The perception of increased privacy on its own will cause individuals to speak and act more freely, reducing social cooling[11] and making it easier to speak out against mass surveillance.
+4. Big Brother will be forced into using more powerful surveillance tools more frequently to collect the same data it already does, thus increasing its public exposure.
+5. Free software[12] will become more widespread since it's a necessary precondition for digital privacy.
+6. Proprietary software[13] will become less widespread since people will use free software in its place.
+
+To sum up this post in a way that makes sense to security-minded people: our minimum acceptable lower bound for a threat model[14] should be avoiding mass surveillance so that we raise the bar on privacy.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Surveillance_state](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Surveillance_state)
+[4: https://www.socialcooling.com/](https://www.socialcooling.com/)
+[5: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html)
+[6: https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai](https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Zero-day_(computing)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Zero-day_(computing))
+[9: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Targeted_surveillance](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Targeted_surveillance)
+[10: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hardware_backdoor](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hardware_backdoor)
+[11: https://www.socialcooling.com](https://www.socialcooling.com)
+[12: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
+[13: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html)
+[14: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Threat_model](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Threat_model)
diff --git a/content/post/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab.md b/content/post/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1b527be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "Rejecting Discord and Google Colab"
+date: 2020-03-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Background
+This semester I took Deep Learning at SIUe[1]. Deep learning is a senior level CS elective course. I'll call the professor, "Professor X" to preserve anonymity.
+
+# Story
+In Deep Learning class, after the lectures, we had to get into groups for our class project. The class project consisted of designing and implementing our own neural network which would do some novel task. It didn't take me long to get into a group. The issue as always was finding a communication platform that we could all use that was free software. Since most students opt for proprietary walled gardens instead such as Discord[2], I had a lot of difficulty because I wasn't willing to use Discord. Our whole group of four agreed on using Discord except for me. Email wouldn't be viable. It's not great for real time communication and file sharing. Even after I explained that I don't use proprietary software, the group still did not want to budge as I expected. So the admin of the Discord "channel" and I got together and set up a Matrix bridge[3]. I was surprised at how easy this was. Because Matrix has a Matrix-Discord bridge[4] available and there is a public bot[5] called t2bot, I was able to use Riot.im client instead of Discord. Riot.im is free software and Matrix is an open protocol which is more acceptable than the proprietary walled garden of Discord. The bot allowed me to create a Matrix room which bridged Discord and the Matrix network. It took less than ten minutes to set up. Now that I got the hang of using it, I'm able to get it working in less than five minutes. There are a few quirks but overall it works fantastically and it's completely free. I recommend donating[6] if you use the bot since there is no charge for using it. It's a great tool for avoiding proprietary Discord and Slack.
+
+Google Colab[7] is a service Google offers that gives researchers and students a free GPU. It can be used for things like training neural networks in Python. It wasn't required for this course per se, but if you didn't have one you had better have a GPU or be in a group with a member that had a GPU. I have a computer with a GPU, but it is AMD, not Nvidia so it wouldn't work with the Python libraries like Keras and Tensorflow we were using to train the neural networks. I discovered this after I had already set up the machine for class unfortunately. I really took issue with Google Colab being basically required. If students didn't agree to the Google terms of service, how would it be possible to do the project? You could have relied on a group member to have an account and train the networks, but that just pushes the problem back a step to your team member agreeing to the terms of service. Worse, Colab requires proprietary Javascript in the browser so you would have to run proprietary code to use it. And you know Google is collecting your experiment data in case you find something of interest because that's their whole evil business model.
+
+I ended up emailing Professor X about the issue explaining that students shouldn't have to agree to Google's terms of service and run proprietary Javascript just to take Deep Learning class. He responded saying unfortunately that while he understands my concerns that's the only way the class could exist and also it was in the syllabus. I don't believe that at all. If it was within budget, the school could offer students GPUs in a lab to train the neural networks the same way the networking lab has special networking equipment for each student. Of course SIUe isn't going to do that because it costs lots of money and using a service from an evil data collecting company costs only your soul. Besides, no one except me in the whole computer science department would care about the ethical advantage of students having their own dedicated GPUs, so it wasn't in SIUe's interest to purchase GPUs for each student.
+
+There were other problems with the class as well not related to proprietary software. I believe the average grade on the midterm was below 50%. There was a lot of background needed to understand the concepts in class that many students didn't have. I felt like my time was being wasted every day in the class because too much material was being covered way too quickly to really learn anything. I don't say that about many classes because there's always the student responsibility to study, but if you ask me that class was a mess. So after I found out my GPU wouldn't work and I couldn't train our group's network myself, I completely lost motivation for the project. There was no way for me to run the code since I refused to sign up to Google Colab. I couldn't even check if my code ran and due to COVID-19, I couldn't get with any group members who had a GPU. The only option was to rent a VPS with a GPU and neural network training capabilities. I decided ultimately that I shouldn't have to and wasn't going to rent a VPS just to pass a class. Despite having our midpoint report finished and a working neural network, I wasn't really learning anything to the depth I wanted to in that class, and the proprietary Google Colab had me discouraged, so I dropped the class.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.siue.edu](https://www.siue.edu)
+[2: https://discordapp.com/](https://discordapp.com/)
+[3: https://matrix.org/bridges/](https://matrix.org/bridges/)
+[4: https://github.com/Half-Shot/matrix-appservice-discord](https://github.com/Half-Shot/matrix-appservice-discord)
+[5: https://t2bot.io/](https://t2bot.io/)
+[6: https://t2bot.io/donations/](https://t2bot.io/donations/)
+[7: https://colab.research.google.com](https://colab.research.google.com)
diff --git a/content/post/rejecting-visual-studio.md b/content/post/rejecting-visual-studio.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bc53cfd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/rejecting-visual-studio.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+title: "Rejecting Visual Studio"
+date: 2020-04-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Background
+This semester I took Intro to Artificial Intelligence at SIUe[1]. Artificial Intelligence is a senior level course. I'll call the professor, "Professor X" to preserve anonymity.
+
+# Story
+## Assignment One - Cats
+Since my time giving in to using Visual Studio in software engineering class and seeing the inner conflict that caused, I was much more prepared to stand up for my beliefs in A.I. class. The very first assignment we got was to write an A.I. that solves a "cat in the hat" problem involving finding certain values for the height of the cats and number of cats in each hat (each cat has a hat with more cats except the cat at height one). I was intrigued. I could have written a program that simulates the cats, but I instead went for an analytical approach and derived two single logarithmic equations that yielded the values efficiently. I still wasn't sure how to solve both equations, so I developed a binary search algorithm for the right value instead. I was disappointed however when after reading the specification I discovered the project had to be completed using Visual Studio and written in C++. Visual Studio is proprietary software made by Microsoft that requires users to agree to a license agreement (which I read) and submit themselves to privacy-invading telemetry. Ew.
+
+I was not thrilled about this, so I opted to write my program using a different IDE and compile it with the gnu-c++ compiler. I wanted to get ahead of this so there wouldn't be any issue, so I emailed Professor X explaining why Visual Studio is proprietary malware, or at least potential malware. Professor X responded that he did not believe it is malware and I should use it anyway. So I responded over email again explaining my beliefs about free software and why students ought not be required to use Visual Studio. He said he would consult with his colleagues about it and the grader as well. Professor X and the grader got back to me explaining that they couldn't change the assignment just for me as there were over thirty students in the class and allowing students to submit their work differently would be too much hassle. Maybe don't ask students to use proprietary software?
+
+After I had already written my program, I spent over four extra hours learning how to use CMake[2] so hopefully it would open in Visual Studio when the grader went to grade it. This was extra work I did that no one else in class had to do because I refused to use proprietary software. After I submitted it, I got a grade of zero because the grader was unable to run my program in Visual Studio. As a side note, it seems ludicrous to me that we were demanded to submit our C++ programs in the form of Visual Studio project files. That is just not a sane way to submit a project. But anyway, I sent a long email to the professor again explaining that my program did compile and run and that I spent four hours trying to use CMake to get it to work for the grader. He emailed back saying how me using CMake was a huge waste of everyone's time, and if I had such a strong problem with Visual Studio, then maybe I should go talk to the dean about it instead of talking to individual professors about my beliefs. I guess his point was if the dean didn't agree that the university should only use free software then I should just accept proprietary software?
+
+The professor and grader agreed, just for this one time, to regrade my program to reflect the work I put in instead of my willingness to agree to Microsoft's insane licenses and run proprietary malware just to write a C++ program, and I got a 90% losing 10% only because I submitted a day late. For the next two programs, the professor and grader agreed that I can submit only the source code cpp files because the grader had figured out how to run them in Visual Studio.
+
+## Assignment Two and Three
+The second assignment was Huarong Path[3], also called Klotski. It is a sliding puzzle where you try to get a particular piece into a particular spot on the board by sliding all the tiles around until you have the piece in the destination spot. There are many heuristics you can develop for this, but I found that implementation was just as important as heuristics. The third assignment was Fore & Aft where you try to reverse the positions of the differently colored pegs. Imagine a large square broken into four quadrants, but two quadrants that are diagonal to one another are missing, and there is one empty center peg and the quadrants have differently colored pegs. The rules are that you can move any peg into an empty adjacent peg or jump over pegs like in the game checkers. I ended up using A*[4] to solve the puzzle. I was able to submit these two assignments with only the source code files, so I didn't have to use Visual Studio and there was no problem.
+
+## Assignment Four - N Queens Puzzle
+Fast forward to the fourth assignment. It was an N Queens puzzle. For N=8, this is better known as the 8 Queens Puzzle[5]. This was my favorite puzzle to write a solution for. I found a simple hill-climbing[6] algorithm from our textbook that was much faster at finding solutions than was asked of us. We had to find three unique solutions. I just allowed my program to take as input the board size as well as the initial position of the first queen. For some reason it was stipulated that we had to enable one queen in the solution to be "fixed" to a certain square so she was guaranteed to be there. It didn't take me long to have this solution written up and submitted, but my grade unexpectedly returned with a failing grade for the assignment. It was because gnu-c++ allowed specifying C arrays without a size, but the standard C++ compiler didn't, so it didn't compile in Visual Studio.
+
+When I turned on warnings when compiling with gnu-c++, I immediately saw what the grader was talking about and fixed it. The grader allowed me to fix it since it was just an issue with the compiler compatibility and not my code. I got full points back for this assignment. I was told after the first assignment that it would be my responsibility to make sure my code worked in Visual Studio and if it didn't, I would be graded accordingly. But the grader was willing to allow this to slide since it was such a minor issue and strictly to do with compiler compatibility.
+
+## Encounter with Professor X
+I talked with Professor X in person outside of class about proprietary Visual Studio. The first thing I remember that he mentioned was how hard it would be for me finding employment with my philosophy about software. This is undeniably true. There is far less money in creating free software than proprietary freedom-destroying software. So I explained to him that my primary focus isn't just employment or living the easiest life possible.
+
+If I wanted to live an easy life and disregard my ethics totally then yes I could do that. But I need to do something to make the world a better place, or at least not worse. There's already enough people making it worse. Also, it's obvious that I'll have to work somewhere that is going to allow me to work within my free software values. I'm not going to be working at AT&T, Google, or Microsoft. If I'm not able to make a living with free software, I'll do some job unrelated to computer science for an income and write free software on the side. It would be much easier to sleep at night doing that instead.
+
+He then suggested I use the university computers instead of my own. I explained to him how this doesn't solve the issue because Visual Studio is still proprietary and I would have to use the Windows malware that is installed on campus computers as well. He said that the university has a deal with Microsoft in which Microsoft deactivated their surveillance features for university computers. SIUe does have a deal with Microsoft (which is why they use so much Microsoft software), but I seriously doubt Microsoft deactivates the spying (telemetry) features for their programs at SIUe. Even if they do, Windows and Visual Studio are still proprietary so there's no way to confirm that.
+
+There was also the extremely common confusion about how software companies will make money producing only free software. Beforehand, I had emailed Professor X supporting links from the FSF[7] website explaining about free software. I tried explaining that it's not about price, but freedom. I could have been misreading the situation so don't take this as fact, but it seemed to me that he didn't have any interest in learning about free software or the ethical implications. He seemed more interested in getting me to conform to using Visual Studio so that it would make his and the grader's job easier. The reason I think that is because throughout our entire prolonged exchange, emails and in person, he didn't mention ethics once and expressed his sentiment that the conversation was "pointless". I don't think conversations about ethics are "pointless". I think a conversation about ethics is important before starting any project, not just writing software.
+
+# Conclusion
+I have seen this theme again and again having conversations with professors. Perhaps I just don't explain free software well enough, which is why I provided links and video resources to Professor X. One thing I often see, which is true of anyone changing their mind in general, is that people won't do it on the spot in realtime. Reading a post like this you may think that I wasted my time. But people do change their minds and it almost always happens in private, not under the pressure of a realtime conversation. And even if people don't change their minds completely, they can often be nudged in the right direction. So don't lose hope just because someone doesn't immediately see things your way. Many professors at SIUe that I've talked to just aren't accustomed to thinking about software freedom as an important issue. I expressed my frustration to Professor X about how the issues he was bringing up were peripheral to me, and that if he really wanted to convince me to use Visual Studio and Windows he would have to show me why my ethical beliefs are wrong.
+
+The truth is unless someone is very brave and intellectually honest, they're not going to change their mind (admit they were wrong) on the spot. Especially professors because they would have to rewrite entire assignments to use different software and restructure their coursework which is potentially a lot of work. I think they are also strongly encouraged from above to use particular proprietary software because of the university's deal with Microsoft. They would have to go against that. But I have seen professors use their own computers in class, so it's still very feasible. It's a lot of work that professors aren't required to do and for reasons most of them aren't accustomed to considering. I'm not defending their decisions to continue using proprietary software, just explaining why they don't change things. I'd like to engage with a professor and see them realize my point on the spot and decide then and there to restructure their course to be more ethical, but that never happens.
+
+Nonetheless, I do think the conversations I've had do have an impact. And most of that impact I'm not seeing because it happens in private after a lot of thought given to ethics, but it does happen. As a matter of strategy, my advice to anyone trying to spread the word about free software at work or universities is twofold.
+
+## Advice 1
+Keep having conversations with people about free software, every opportunity you get that seems appropriate. Especially have conversations with those with the most authority to do something to make change. Don't worry about looking like a fool because times are desperate and if free software philosophy doesn't spread more, we risk losing more ground to encroaching proprietary software. We cannot let the free world disappear.
+
+## Advice 2
+Encourage others to reject proprietary software and reject it yourself. Get a few people who agree with you and form a club or pact to reject it. There's not always free software that perfectly replaces proprietary software, in which case you must reject the proprietary software entirely with no substitute. At SIUe and any other universities, professors aren't going to take much notice if you go off on your own trying to create little workarounds for the proprietary software they want you to use. The only action which they have to respond to is when you outright refuse to use the proprietary software and most importantly tell them why you're rejecting it. It's helpful to propose free software at the same time, but most important is telling them you refuse to use proprietary software and stand behind that decision with unflinching stubbornness. The only way to slow the encroachment of proprietary software in schools, universities and workplaces is to refuse to use or develop it, demand alternatives, and spread the word.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.siue.edu](https://www.siue.edu)
+[2: https://cmake.org/](https://cmake.org/)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Klotski](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Klotski)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm](https://wikiless.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Eight_queens_puzzle](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Eight_queens_puzzle)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hill_climbing](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Hill_climbing)
+[7: https://www.fsf.org](https://www.fsf.org)
diff --git a/content/post/remote-fair-coin-flipping-with-friends.md b/content/post/remote-fair-coin-flipping-with-friends.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c23963f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/remote-fair-coin-flipping-with-friends.md
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+---
+title: "Remote Fair Coin Flipping with Friends"
+date: 2020-11-19T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Suppose you and some friends want to flip a coin without meeting up. It has to be done over an authenticated communication channel[1] such as a secure messaging app. How can you do it such that nobody can predict the final result? I'll explain how to do it fairly. I'm well aware of common coin algorithms. This post is mostly just for amusement. It's my half-hearted attempt at designing a cryptosystem. More on that later.
+
+# Coin Flipping
+## Flipping a Coin with a Friend
+These are the steps for performing a single coin flip:
+
+1. Flip a physical coin. Heads represents 0. Tails represents 1.
+2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a nonce[2] that your friend cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For tails, it will look like this: 1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang
+3. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of the string in step 2 (in Bash[3]): echo -n "1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang" | sha256sum
+4. Publish the hash from step 3 onto the authenticated communication channel.
+5. Pause until your friend completes step 4.
+6. Publish the result from step 2 onto the authenticated communication channel.
+7. Pause until your friend completes step 6.
+8. Calculate the hash of your friend's step 2 result comparing it to their step 3 result. If it doesn't match, then one of you has incorrectly computed the hash.
+9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friend's step 2 results. Then XOR[4] both results.
+10. Convert the value from step 9 back to heads or tails as defined in step 1.
+
+## Flipping Multiple Coins with a Friend
+
+If you want to flip multiple coins, you can repeat steps 1-10 of the single coin flip, but that's very cumbersome. There's an easier solution. Suppose you and your friend want to flip N coins:
+
+1. Flip N physical coins. Heads represents 0. Tails represents 1. Concatenate the coin flip results.
+2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a nonce[5] that your friend cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For the sequence heads tails heads tails heads, it will look like this: 01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa
+3. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of the string in step 2 (in Bash[6]): echo -n "01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa" | sha256sum
+4. Publish the hash from step 3 onto the authenticated communication channel.
+5. Pause until your friend completes step 4.
+6. Publish the result from step 2 onto the authenticated communication channel.
+7. Pause until your friend completes step 6.
+8. Calculate the hash of your friend's step 2 result comparing it to their step 3 result. If it doesn't match, then one of you has incorrectly computed the hash.
+9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friend's step 2 results. Then XOR[7] both results.
+10. Convert the values from step 9 back to heads or tails as defined in step 1.
+
+## Flipping a Coin with 3+ Friends
+It is possible to perform a remote fair coin flip with 3 or more participants, but there are 3 caveats. One caveat is depending on how many participants you have, it could take quite a bit longer than the previous cases where you only have 1 other person. This is because everyone has to participate in the coin flip if everyone wants to ensure fairness. Otherwise the other participants can collude to manipulate the coin flip. The second caveat is you need to have a robust authenticated group communication channel resistant to replay attacks[8] and other funny business such as messages being edited/deleted without indication and out of order message receipt. But maybe that's taking my cryptosystem too seriously. The third caveat is increased complexity. All participants will need to know how to perform all the steps and there's a greater chance someone doesn't do step 3 right. Regardless, here's how you flip a coin with 3+ friends:
+
+1. Flip a physical coin. Heads represents 0. Tails represents 1.
+2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a nonce[9] that your friends cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For tails, it will look like this: 1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang
+3. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of the string in step 2 (in Bash[10]): echo -n "1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang" | sha256sum
+4. Publish the hash from step 3 onto the authenticated communication channel.
+5. Pause until all your friends complete step 4.
+6. Publish the result from step 2 onto the authenticated communication channel.
+7. Pause until all your friends complete step 6.
+8. Calculate the hashes of your friends' step 2 results comparing it to their step 3 results. If they don't match, then one of you has incorrectly computed the hash.
+9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friends' step 2 results. Then XOR[11] all results.
+10. Convert the value from step 9 back to heads or tails as defined in step 1.
+
+## Flipping Multiple Coins with 3+ Friends
+This is the most difficult coin flip: multiple coins with more than 2 participants. I think you get the gist of it by now and I don't really need to type all this out, but I will for completeness sake. Not much will be changed from the above steps though.
+
+1. Flip N physical coins. Heads represents 0. Tails represents 1. Concatenate the coin flip results.
+2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a nonce[12] that your friends cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For the sequence heads tails heads tails heads, it will look like this: 01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa
+3. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of the string in step 2 (in Bash[13]): echo -n "01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa" | sha256sum
+4. Publish the hash from step 3 onto the authenticated communication channel.
+5. Pause until all your friends complete step 4.
+6. Publish the result from step 2 onto the authenticated communication channel.
+7. Pause until all your friends complete step 6.
+8. Calculate the hashes of your friends' step 2 results comparing it to their step 3 results. If they don't match, then one of you has incorrectly computed the hash.
+9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friends' step 2 results. Then XOR[14] all results.
+10. Convert the values from step 9 back to heads or tails as defined in step 1.
+
+# Rationale
+10 steps just to flip coins seems like a lot. So why all the steps?
+
+Publishing the cryptographic hashes before the plaintext ensures that so long as there's at least 1 honest participant, the final results can't be tampered with. An honest participant is defined as a participant that faithfully completes all the steps.
+
+The reason for the nonce is the following: It would be trivial to convert the cryptographic hash of just 0 or just 1 back into its plaintext value. That's why you need to append a random value at the end. The reason the random value must be a nonce is the same reason you can't just hash a 0 or a 1. If you reuse the random value, then the other participant(s) could catch on that you use the same value every time and collude to manipulate the final result. The space just delimits the coin flip(s) from the nonce.
+
+XOR was chosen as opposed to AND because AND would obviously bias the result toward tails.
+
+# Attack Vectors
+## Publishing Invalid Data
+One attack vector against my toy cryptosystem is just using nonsense as the plaintext. This will fail because it can just be discarded by all other participants. If the plaintext is valid but doesn't match the hash, then the plaintext can again be discarded. This type of attacker won't be able to verify the coin flip as unpredictable, but that's their punishment for not following the rules.
+
+## Synchronicity Attack
+A more devastating attack with no clear solution is when an attacker doesn't publish anything, stalling the coin flip indefinitely. The first intuition for solving this is to start a timer as soon as the first hash is published and after the agreed upon time has passed, the attacker is simply excluded from participating. But this won't work because the attacker can just publish near the agreed upon time limit. Due to latency and asynchronicity of messages, if successful, some participants will count the attacker's contribution to the coin flip while others will not. Honest participants won't be able to agree on the final results. Therefore the integrity of the results will be compromised. Worse yet, it won't be possible for the participants to even detect this unless they all publish their final results and cross-compare everything. Even then, an attacker can just lie about their results confusing everybody.
+
+Another idea at resolving the integrity issue would be to designate a leader to declare which participants' contributions count. Therefore the leader would have to be trusted not to manipulate the results. But the whole point of the coin flip is you shouldn't have to trust the other participants, so a leader defeats the purpose of the cryptosystem.
+
+You might be thinking more democratically though. Instead of having a single leader who acts like a dictator of the coin flip, you have a democracy. Once some majority of the participants has contributed to the coin flip, simply compute the result then. Trusting the majority is better than trusting a single participant. But this also fails because it could just happen by coincidence that two contributions happen at the same time, or an attacker collides them on purpose. In that case some participants will count the attacker's contribution to the coin flip while others will count some other contribution. Honest participants won't be able to agree on the final results. The integrity of the results will be compromised yet again.
+
+# Why You Don't Roll Your Own Crypto
+By now you should have begun to see why a more advanced "common coin" algorithm is needed. This is a cryptosystem that doesn't have a good way to prevent an attacker from compromising the integrity of the coin flip, or forever stalling it. Any attempt to solve this problem just ends up pushing it back a step. In other words, this cryptosystem I've created is hopelessly broken and the only way to fix it is a completely different algorithm. But I can get away with it because I can say it's just a toy cryptosystem for fun. It should never be used for any real-world application. Use a common coin instead. And it's also an example of why you should never roll your own crypto. Even when it seems foolproof, there's always weird edge cases that ruin everything. This post shows a neat thing you can do with friends and also demonstrates why you should always use established cryptosystems rather than inventing your own. I hope you enjoyed it.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Secure_channel](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Secure_channel)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce)
+[3: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/](https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Exclusive_or](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Exclusive_or)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce)
+[6: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/](https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Exclusive_or](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Exclusive_or)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Replay_attack](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Replay_attack)
+[9: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce)
+[10: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/](https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/)
+[11: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Exclusive_or](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Exclusive_or)
+[12: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce)
+[13: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/](https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/)
+[14: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Exclusive_or](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Exclusive_or)
diff --git a/content/post/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement.md b/content/post/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3e2482a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Shining Light on the Dark Side of Law Enforcement"
+date: 2020-12-04T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+The US constitution is supposed to protect citizens from thug[1] overreach. However, evidence from the past decade shows that thugs have been stomping all over our civil liberties daily by colluding with intelligence agencies. The federal government does this by constructing lies about how agents discover information. For example if the government discovers a crime through illegal mass surveillance or another covert surveillance program, it can't use that evidence directly because that would violate the 4th amendment and expose Big Brother. Instead, "hints" are passed on to thugs so they can construct a "parallel" chain of evidence that can be used in court. This is where it gets the name parallel construction[2]. Parallel construction sounds like innocuous jargon from an architecture course, so I prefer to call the practice by the more descriptive name, evidence laundering.
+
+Evidence laundering prevents defendants in criminal cases from knowing about infringements of their rights. It makes challenging thugs' actions in court very difficult, making a mockery of the right to a fair trial. The motivation for thugs to respect a defendant's rights is that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court. With evidence laundering, the illegal evidence is converted into legal evidence. Therefore the motivation not to violate citizen's rights goes away, so long as thugs can keep citizens from proving it occurred. Even if a defendant in a criminal trial suspects evidence laundering, it's nigh impossible to prove. This puts minorities and political activists at risk of having their rights violated without even knowing it.
+
+Moreover, evidence laundering undermines the civil liberties of every citizen. It is not a technique for enforcing the law. One cannot simultaneously subvert the law and enforce it. It's just a tool for government-aided vigilantism. It will only continue to erode citizens' constitutional rights as government surveillance programs expand. It must be outlawed.
+
+Find more information about evidence laundering at hrw.org[3].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://stallman.org/glossary.html#thug](https://stallman.org/glossary.html#thug)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Parallel_construction](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Parallel_construction)
+[3: https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-evidence-us-criminal-cases](https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-evidence-us-criminal-cases)
diff --git a/content/post/shouting-into-the-void.md b/content/post/shouting-into-the-void.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9a91930
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/shouting-into-the-void.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+title: "Shouting Into the Void"
+date: 2021-09-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+I've long had the desire to share ideas with the world. Before I started this journal though, I didn't have an outlet for that. So there was already built up pressure to express myself. The spark that started the fire that is this journal was personal events in my life and how they related to my principles. Ever since, I've shared as many good ideas here as I've had time and motivation for.
+
+Occasionally people reach out and send me feedback. Knowing that at least a few people read my ideas has done a lot for me. I'm grateful that this journal has gotten the attention it has. But I often wonder if there's a better way to promote my ideas that would reach more people. Maybe I should publish books? Publishing ideas is fulfilling, especially when others give thoughtful responses. But marketing and SEO bore me to death. The result seems to be a lot of good ideas in one place receiving less attention than they deserve.
+
+One concern I have about this journal is that I'm preaching to the choir. The people who read this journal are probably those who need it least. For instance, my last non-update journal entry was about how people should not have children. Ideally, I want the first worlder that wants a large family to read that entry because that's who really needs to read it. I don't think I'm reaching that demographic though.
+
+I want to reach a wide audience. I want my ideas to make a difference in the world. I don't want to put in all this effort for a small group of only 5 or 10 people. Otherwise I feel like I'm shouting into the void. I'm not a total keyboard warrior because at least I have my own platforms and don't leech off social media, but still. I've put a lot of effort into making this journal accessible on many different platforms. I don't want that effort to be wasted.
+
+I plan to start keeping track of how many site requests are made. Right now, my only metric for estimating read count is the occasional email I receive. If you would, please email me[1] letting me know how often you read this journal, which platform you're using to access it, and any other demographic information you're comfortable providing so I get an idea of my audience.
+
+I have no way to collect analytics for Flounder, Gitlab, Gemini, Freenet, or Zeronet. I'm against adding tracking scripts on the web version of this journal. Pageviews don't necessarily translate into interested readers and that's about all I can see. So if you're reading this, I'm counting on your input. But I digress.
+
+I've been thinking it would be nice if I had a way to monetize my writing. Donations aren't working but I'm uncomfortable with my ideas being restricted from people just because they don't have enough funds. So I'll always make my thoughts available through my writing on a "pay what you want" basis, even if that payment is zero. If I decide to try my hand at writing ebooks rather than online journal entries, I'll give the ebooks away for free with the option of payment.
+
+Format-wise, I write rather than making videos or podcasts because I just don't want to put myself out there that much. I care about my privacy. Perhaps I'll make this journal accessible to passive listeners by running entries through a text-to-speech engine. If I were to raise enough money through donations, I could pay for human voiceovers instead.
+
+Unlike popular online educators, I don't hold back controversial viewpoints in the name of appealing to a mainstream, normie audience. I just write whatever the hell I want. On this journal, I give readers brutal honestly instead of trying to win them over. I'm trying to spread good ideas that will age well. Sometimes that means losing the popularity contest.
+
+But I understand there is a balance to strike between diplomacy and truth if you want to have a decent sized audience. There is also something to be said about how a message is communicated. Effective communication is the difference between being listened to by millions and being ignored. I also worry that some folks may be put off by my style of writing. Perhaps that could be improved too.
+
+In every journal entry I've written so far, I've done a lot of filtering. Every entry I write gets edited, reorganized, reviewed, and proofread before I publish it. Since raw thoughts aren't optimal for consumption by others, it makes sense to clean up my writing before publishing. But I wonder if there's a downside to this.
+
+Perhaps if I wrote more freeform, that would make my writing more appealing. Instead of seeing only my heavily filtered thoughts, you would get a behind the scenes look at my intuitions as well. And that's sort of what this journal entry is. It's an experiment in being less filtered to see if people respond better.
+
+Of course when I'm communicating ideas, I strive to be as clear as possible. And that means I have to revise a lot. But maybe not every post needs to be so organized. I don't know. I need advice. Email me and let me know your thoughts.
+
+Every time I get emails about this journal, they're always very thoughtful and that's one of the things I love about doing this. I'm sure the responses to this entry are going to be no different. There are other things I love about writing this journal too. Who knows? Maybe I'll write about them in another entry. Until next time, thanks for reading!
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: About Page](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-001.md b/content/post/site-update-001.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c6d6d53
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-001.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 001"
+date: 2020-10-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+I just finished migrating this site to a new server in Poland and I made a few changes along the way. I added IPv6 support to the site. I cleaned up the about[1] page and added some context to give the site a clear purpose. The primary crypto donation method is now Monero instead of Bitcoin. It's better for privacy. I also switched from Ko-fi to Liberapay[2]. Liberapay supports multiple currencies and languages. It's a non-profit that handles transactions transparently with free software[3].
+
+As for the site mirrors, I removed the SIUe[4] mirror since it's insecure and I seem to have lost access since I don't attend any more. I changed the onion address to a new vanity onion[5]. I also registered my I2P site with zzz's I2P domain name service so it's more memorable. It will take up to a week to propogate through all the nodes, so you'll have to use the direct base32 address[6] or a jump service to access this blog over I2P for now. I don't plan on changing the links again so it's safe to bookmark the new onion address and I2P link. I've made a backup of the private keys for the eepsite, onion, and zeronet addresses. In the event of a future server migration, I'll be able to keep the addresses the same.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: /about](../../../../about/)
+[2: https://liberapay.com](https://liberapay.com)
+[3: https://github.com/liberapay](https://github.com/liberapay)
+[4: https://www.siue.edu/~njohnag](https://www.siue.edu/~njohnag)
+[5: http://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion](http://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion)
+[6: http://nickg4tsj3wy3i23faxp5momjcnlwrvwl5ek5l7lkm5vrbblvgbq.b32.i2p](http://nickg4tsj3wy3i23faxp5momjcnlwrvwl5ek5l7lkm5vrbblvgbq.b32.i2p)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-002.md b/content/post/site-update-002.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..41e77c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-002.md
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 002"
+date: 2020-11-13T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+The RSS feed on my site works again. I'm not sure how long it was broken. I generate this site using relative URLs in order to accomodate I2P, Tor and Zeronet users. That inadvertantly caused the XML for RSS to also use relative links. RSS doesn't support relative links because it has no way of knowing the URL from only the XML data. I patched it so the XML now uses absolute links.
+
+Sorry to anybody using RSS! ¯\(ツ)/¯
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-003.md b/content/post/site-update-003.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f8cc929
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-003.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 003"
+date: 2020-12-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+I removed the bootstrap JS that wasn't really doing anything. The site should load faster and use less data now. I created a new tag called "info" for all site updates. The about page has been compacted so it's cleaner and easier to read and not so long-winded. I also updated my PGP key to use Curve25519 instead of RSA. PGP is awful[1]. I still use it for email only because it's better than nothing.
+
+This site allows you to get filtered RSS feeds for just the content you're interested in. For example, if you only want to read about privacy, then you can use https://0gitnick.xyz/tags/privacy/index.xml for a privacy feed or https://0gitnick.xyz/tags/privacy/index.html for webpages. The category-centered feeds were broken with the same issue the aggregate site feed had last time with the relative URLs. They're fixed now.
+
+The biggest change I made is reorganizing the tags. I renamed some tags and added new ones. The reason I did that is I have in mind the readers who just want a particular type of content and the tags were disorganized before. If I'm not sure if a post should be assigned a certain tag, I err on the side of too many tags since not tagging it could mean some readers will miss a relevant post. It's better for readers to see a post they don't care about now and then and just delete it rather than miss posts entirely because I was too strict with tagging.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://secushare.org/PGP](https://secushare.org/PGP)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-004.md b/content/post/site-update-004.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ec89ec5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-004.md
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 004"
+date: 2020-12-13T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+You may have noticed the site was down on the 11th and IPv6 was unavailable on the 12th. My hosting provider had an outage, but the situation is resolved now.
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-005.md b/content/post/site-update-005.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dbef2c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-005.md
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 005"
+date: 2020-12-24T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+I removed the people and organizations sections on the about[1] page. I never explained why those sections were there in the first place. I just filled them with links to organizations and people. My linking to them was not an endorsement of everything those people and organizations have ever said or done. For people I was just trying to indicate that each person in the list had some important ideas. For organizations I was trying to indicate that I thought they fought for worthy causes on the whole. But there was no way for readers to know just by looking at the links which words and actions I agreed with and which I disagreed with. I removed those links because, as I've written before[2], I want my blog to be chiefly about ideas, not people or organizations.
+
+With that said, there are so many ideas that I appreciate from others that sound better in their words rather than my own. I was conscious of this when writing about free[3] will[4]. Those posts were inspired by Sam Harris[5]' book Free Will[6]. It's not that I can't make a good case against free will. It's that I can't make a better case against free will than Sam does in his book. So it might have been better for me to literally plug his book rather than write my own post on the subject. I feel this way when it comes to lots of topics. Why spend so much time and effort restating something someone else has already expressed in a clearer way than I can?
+
+Therefore I've decided to create a new tag called "recommendation". Posts under the recommendation tag will feature books, articles, academic papers, videos and ideas along with some commentary. The idea is this will give me the flexibility to write a new post when I want to share ideas in my own words and create a "recommendation" post when I want to endorse the ideas of others in their own words. After I've created a few recommendation posts and a few regular posts, I'll reevaluate site organization and decide whether to keep recommendations or come up with something else.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: /about](../../../../about/)
+[2: https://web.archive.org/web/20201205230110id_/https://0gitnick.xyz/about/](https://web.archive.org/web/20201205230110id_/https://0gitnick.xyz/about/)
+[3: /2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
+[4: /2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2](../../../../2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Sam_Harris](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Sam_Harris)
+[6: https://samharris.org/books/free-will/](https://samharris.org/books/free-will/)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-006.md b/content/post/site-update-006.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a195fd1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-006.md
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 006"
+date: 2020-12-27T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+I changed the website theme. It's darker now and much easier on the eyes. I didn't particularly like the last theme ever since I started using it. I only picked it because it was easy to manage with how minimal it was. I added a favicon to identify my site:
+
+[favicon [IMG]](../../../../resource/favicon.ico)
+
+It's nothing to brag about. I just thought I ought to have something there. The markdown is improved, especially the blockquotes. It didn't seem like they were rendering on the previous theme, but now they do. Each post now has a word count and estimated reading time in the metadata section. Posts are paginated so they're not all on one page like before. I'm allergic to client-side JS, so this site has none. I modified the theme to use CSS rather than JS for the interactive features. I'm happy with the way it turned out and I consider it a significant improvement. The new theme is everything I originally wanted for my blog, so it's here to stay.
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-007.md b/content/post/site-update-007.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..07727d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-007.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 007"
+date: 2021-01-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+I provisioned a new TLS certificate from ZeroSSL[1]. That's why there was some downtime yesterday on 0gitnick.xyz. By default Caddy[2] provisions TLS certs from Let's Encrypt[3] with a P-256 public key. I don't trust NIST curves[4] so 0gitnick.xyz uses a 4096 bit RSA key now. As of the time of this post all other clearnet site mirrors[5] use 2048 bit RSA which is also secure.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://zerossl.com](https://zerossl.com)
+[2: https://caddyserver.com](https://caddyserver.com)
+[3: https://letsencrypt.org](https://letsencrypt.org)
+[4: https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html](https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html)
+[5: /about](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-008.md b/content/post/site-update-008.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..de5c22c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-008.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 008"
+date: 2021-01-31T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+It seems I'm making update posts more often than I imagined, but it's fine. I'm going to try out a list format for this one.
+
+* Change "recommendation" tag to more specific tags. (e.g., "books", "videos")
+* Sign commits on Github/Gitlab[1] so users can TOFU[2] this blog
+* Minify html and css
+
+# Future Plans
+* Mirror site repo and scripts on Savannah
+* Write content summaries[3] for each post for improved site/RSS readability
+* Reconsider posts displayed per page after adjusting site summaries
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://gitlab.com/0Gitnick/0Gitnick.github.io](https://gitlab.com/0Gitnick/0Gitnick.github.io)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Trust_on_first_use](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Trust_on_first_use)
+[3: https://gohugo.io/content-management/summaries/](https://gohugo.io/content-management/summaries/)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-009.md b/content/post/site-update-009.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0e6a4f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-009.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 009"
+date: 2021-02-21T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+I haven't posted anything for a while and I've been working behind the scenes to make improvements. Here they are:
+
+* Output RSS content as full post content rather than mere content summaries for better accessibility to RSS users.
+* Move the custom inline CSS to the external stylesheet.
+* The site's Github and Gitlab[1] CI workflows that host the site mirrors[2] have been fixed. Before, I was locally generating files and uploading them as a single commit. Now, I upload the source files and let the remote servers do the work.
+* Launch Gitea server on new subdomain https://git.0gitnick.xyz[3] to host site content and theme for better organization and transparency in generating the site. The reason I did not go with Savannah as I planned in my last site update is because Savannah has very strict licensing requirements. Since my site is forked and I might fork more projects in the future, I'd rather not spend hours fixing license text before I can even upload the project. I have no problem with meticulously licensing my own work. It would just be too demotivating to do that for someone else's work.
+* Write content summaries for every post. This was very tedious but worth it. It makes the site more aesthetically pleasing and much easier to follow. It's my own fault for not doing this from the beginning.
+* Add Ethereum address and tokens for more donation options.
+
+# Future Plans
+* Add Gemini[4] support. The modern web has so many problems: tracking cookies, proprietary client-side Javascript[5], non-Unix philosophy, browser fingerprinting[6], DRM[7] as a standard, etc. Gopher[8] is 30 years old and has suffered decline. Gemini[9] is more modern avoiding the limitations of Gopher and the pitfalls of the modern web.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://gitlab.com/0gitnick/0gitnick.gitlab.io](https://gitlab.com/0gitnick/0gitnick.gitlab.io)
+[2: /about](../../../../about/)
+[3: https://git.nicksphere.ch](https://git.nicksphere.ch)
+[4: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/)
+[5: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html)
+[6: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/](https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/)
+[7: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/](https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29)
+[9: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-010.md b/content/post/site-update-010.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..158e6cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-010.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 010"
+date: 2021-04-07T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+I did some more behind the scenes work on my site:
+
+* Add Libreboot/osboot mirrors to the mirrors subdomain.
+* Convert embedded videos to links. I don't want my site to embed external resources, contacting other sites. All resources should be local.
+* Add Freenet support. I want to support many platforms and supporting Freenet isn't any inconvenience to me.
+* Add license files in the site's Git project[1]. I did that to clarify the licensing of my writings for those looking at the Git repo.
+* Prepend dates to content URIs (/YYYY/MM/DD/TITLE). This one is going to annoy RSS users because all my posts will reappear but I feel like it was worth it.
+* Make About page more detailed.
+* Change post licenses to CC-BY-SA 4.0. Previously they were under CC-BY-ND, but I don't mind if others change my content and redistribute it. I don't even care if they monetize it. I only care that I'm given credit for my work.
+
+# Future Plans
+* Add Gemini[2] support. I justified this in my last site update[3]. I've converted my Hugo markdown files to Gemini and created a repo for the Gemini capsule[4].
+
+I have 2 options when it comes to Gemini:
+
+1. Maintain 2 separate copies of my content. This adds significant overhead to updating the site and writing posts since I have to do everything twice.
+2. Maintain 1 copy of my content. It would have to be Gemini-first since html -> gmi is lossy, but gmi -> html is not. I'd have to write a custom CMS since I have too many posts to manually organize into tags and pages. I would also need the custom CMS to generate the Atom/RSS feeds for every tag. In the long run this would be simpler because I'd only have to maintain 1 copy of my content. Hugo would be scrapped.
+
+Given my dislike of the modern web, I'm opting for option 2. My content will still be available on the web, only the site layout will change. The canonical repo will be 0gitnick.xyz-gmi and 0gitnick.xyz-www-v2 will be generated from 0gitnick.xyz-gmi using a custom CMS. The existing 0gitnick.xyz-www which is hugo based will be renamed to 0gitnick.xyz-www-v1. I will maintain it until 0gitnick.xyz-gmi and 0gitnick.xyz-www-v2 are ready, which I estimate to take at least a few months.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-www](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-www)
+[2: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/)
+[3: /2021/02/21/site-update-009](../../../../2021/02/21/site-update-009/)
+[4: https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-gmi](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-gmi)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-011.md b/content/post/site-update-011.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ed6f620
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-011.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 011"
+date: 2021-05-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+I paused posts because I've been busy migrating my blog to gemini[1]:
+* Migrate blog to gemini because the web is cancer.
+* New website! Even though the web is cancer, a web presence is still a necessity. I wrote a script that generates a gemini capsule and website from my content files. I also wrote the CSS myself to mirror the look of the Amfora gemini client for convergence.
+* Register a new domain name! nicksphere.com. It's a .com domain, more memorable and more meaningful than 0gitnick.xyz. 0gitnick.xyz will also work until it expires just to give readers time to bookmark the new domain.
+* New Tor/I2P/Freenet links as well! The Tor v3 onion now contains "nick" instead of "0gitnick". The i2p address is now "nicksphere.i2p". The freenet link is now "/nicksphere" instead of "/0gitnick".
+* Gemfeed and web feed (Atom) are available with content summaries. Full content Atom feeds may be available again in the future, but don't bank on it.
+* Promoted content has returned! I added a disclaimer this time to make it clear what the promoted content is all about so that my previous reservations are lessened.
+* I will no longer promote content with a post unless I have significant commentary to add. I don't like posting others' content in my own posts because then if you already view their content then you see it twice. It just wasn't a good way of organizing promoted content, so I'm done doing that. Here's how it will work going forward: For content I want to promote, I will use the promoted page. For content I want to commentate on, I will make a post about it.
+* All tags and separate feeds are gone. I don't feel like the tagging system was very valuable. I often didn't know what to tag my posts or whether to create a new tag for them or remove a tag. Now I don't have to think about it. I can get on with just doing what I like which is writing posts. As for you readers of my blog, I have doubts that anyone much uses the tags anyway. Reading the title and summary probably does more to help readers make a judgement if they want to read that post than tags. I would've had to reimplement them in my content management system and it didn't seem worth the work.
+
+# Future Plans
+* Write configuration files for CI pipelines so the Github and Gitlab site mirrors work again. Since I'm using a content management system I wrote myself, I also have to write the CI pipeline configuration for generating the site myself and I haven't gotten to it yet.
+
+Ignore what site update 10 says about the repos. It only makes sense to have 1 repo to maintain content on gemini and the web. The repo nicksphere-www is deprecated. It will no longer be used at all. The canonical repo for my content is now nicksphere-gmi. It contains generator scripts for gemini and the web as well. It still needs work such as the CI pipelines, but it's close enough to use for my capsule and my site now.
+
+In post 10 I estimated it to take months to launch this gemini capsule, but I'm clearly ahead of schedule. Also, I've learned there are existing content management systems for gemlogs that I could have used. They generate Atom feeds automatically, but I've already written my own that works well for my content, so I'll just make changes to it if necessary instead of using someone else's.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Gemini specification](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-012.md b/content/post/site-update-012.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5d1a666
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-012.md
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 012"
+date: 2021-06-10T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+* The wonky CSS is fixed. The result is the site is much more presentable and easy to read on mobile and desktop. Specifically, the spacing is more consistent.
+* Gitlab pages now correctly generates my website using .gitlab-ci.yml. I deleted my Github mirror since I didn't want to write a CI script to support the proprietary Github pages system.
+* New Privatebin instance on the bin subdomain
+
+# Future Plans
+* Support multithreading in capsule / site generation scripts. This should make generation go faster.
+
+It just didn't occur to me to support multithreading when I was writing the scripts. Page generation speed isn't a problem now and probably never will be even if I don't update the scripts, but the intermediary changes I have to make before I support multithreading will improve the readability and maintainability of my scripts on its own. I like my code to be as easy to understand as possible for my future self and for others and I'm sure I can do better with those scripts.
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-013.md b/content/post/site-update-013.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..68908b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-013.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 013"
+date: 2021-07-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+* Full content Atom feeds[1] have returned. Before Gemini, I had a full content web feed, not just the summaries. After Gemini, I changed it to summaries only. Now, full content is supported again along with summaries. It was a mistake adding Gemini without full content web feed support. I shouldn't have taken that feature away from readers without warning. I was just so focused on getting Gemini that I ditched the web feed to roll that out early. Apologies to anyone using it. I don't really care how readers access my blog as long as they're reading it and I want to make it as accessible as possible for everyone.
+* New content submodule[2]. This almost entirely separates the text on my blog from everything else, significantly reducing the number of files in the main repository. I did this to create a logical separation between the text on the blog and everything used to generate/display that text.
+* Clearer licensing. The licensing was unclear before because I didn't clearly indicate which licenses went with which files. Now that content and scripts live in separate repositories, the main repo can use GPLv3 exclusively and the content CC BY-SA 4.0 exclusively.
+* Gitlab pages is fixed as of this commit[3]. Before, it wasn't recursively cloning the new content submodule, so the generation process was failing and the mirror was down for a while.
+* GNU Audio Video mirror link added. I'm now mirroring all the GNU audios and videos. Before I had the A/V on the mirrors subdomain and A/V links weren't working that way. I realized that particular mirror requires its own domain to display properly, so now it has one.
+
+# Future Plans
+* Support multithreading in blog generation scripts. This should make generation go faster. This is even more important now that feeds are generated independently of pages. See site update 12 for details[4].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Atom/RSS feed](../../../../atom.xml)
+[2: Nicksphere content submodule](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-gmi-content)
+[3: Gitlab CI fix](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere-gmi/commit/?id=3ea0615f72fcae2d345f239569019429c5d5d168)
+[4: Site Update 012](../../../../2021/06/10/site-update-012/)
diff --git a/content/post/site-update-014.md b/content/post/site-update-014.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..322f61f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/site-update-014.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "Site Update 014"
+date: 2021-08-28T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# What's New
+* My blog was added to nightfall.city[1].
+
+Nightfall.city is a virtual city. I'm on main street. Being added was a pleasant surprise. I like these little Gemini communities. I like reading other people's Gemlogs and finding out what they're up to. The browsing experience of the Geminispace is so much more user-friendly than browsing the web. I could browse for hours. I encourage you to download a Gemini client and explore the space yourself.
+
+Personally, I like the uniformity of presentation. It lends itself to a nondistracting, enjoyable experience. I like knowing I'm not going to encounter ads, tracking cookies or other garbage and I don't have to worry about client-side Javascript because Gemini doesn't support Javascript or cookies! I can focus on what's important: the content.
+
+I also like the simplicity. I don't have to learn how to navigate every new Gemini capsule I visit because they're all the same. My brain doesn't have to get used to different stylesheets. It's just better. I'll probably do a post about Gemini in the future. Anyway, the web is a bloated mess. Long live Gemini!
+
+# Future Plans
+* Support multithreading in blog generation scripts. This should make generation go faster. This is even more important now that feeds are generated independently of pages. See site update 12 for details[2].
+* Support caching in blog generation scripts. This should make generation go much faster.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: nightfall.city](//nightfall.city)
+[2: Site Update 012](../../../../2021/06/10/site-update-012/)
diff --git a/content/post/siue-cyberstalking-feature.md b/content/post/siue-cyberstalking-feature.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bad5cfb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/siue-cyberstalking-feature.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "SIUe Cyberstalking Feature"
+date: 2020-06-06T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+https://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml[1]
+
+This lesser-known feature has existed for at least 2 years and probably much longer than that. I emailed their helpdesk[2] several times pointing out the search feature could be abused by cyberstalkers and data mined. I pointed out that it should require authentication and not be open to the public internet. It's a huge risk for student privacy and safety. Anyone can find any student's full name, area of study, rank, home address, phone number and university email. A week later, I still have no response.
+
+A quick search reveals that other university's student directories generally don't include the student's rank, home address, or phone number. SIUe should at least remove the home address and phone number fields from public view.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml](https://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml)
+[2: mailto:help@siue.edu](mailto:help@siue.edu)
diff --git a/content/post/siue-eid-creation-and-maintenance-problems.md b/content/post/siue-eid-creation-and-maintenance-problems.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4ed019d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/siue-eid-creation-and-maintenance-problems.md
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+---
+title: "SIUe e-ID Creation and Maintenance Problems"
+date: 2020-06-10T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Arbitrary Password Rules
+I'll go over them one at a time. They are found at https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password[1].
+
+* The previous 6 passwords cannot be reused.
+
+I don't have much to say about this one. It only reduces the password space by 6, so it doesn't make brute-forcing easier.
+
+* A password must contain at least seven characters (letters or numbers) but no more than eight characters.
+
+Cringe! The 2017 NIST guidelines[2] say passwords must be at least 8 characters. SIUe seems to have gotten this advice backwards with a maximum of 8 character passwords.
+
+* A password must contain at least five unique characters.
+
+This goes against the 2017 NIST guideline against imposing composition rules for passwords. It also reduces the already small password space.
+
+* A password must contain at least one letter (A-Z or a-z) and at least one number (0-9).
+
+Again imposing an arbitrary composition rule that reduces the password space.
+
+* A password must start with a letter or a number.
+
+Do I even need to say it a third time?
+
+* A password cannot contain any of the characters $&@=+"/[]:;|*,?<>~' or a space.
+
+Throw out the NIST guideline on using all printable ASCII characters and unicode. In fact, it doesn't support unicode. I tried inserting a unicode character only to get errors. From a security perspective, this rule is extremely concerning. I'm not sure what it's trying to do, but some of the characters are used in SQL commands. Could this indicate a SQL injection[3] vulnerability? Since SIUe has to update the password across multiple systems (Blackboard, Outlook, etc.), it could be due to a compatibility issue. This could also be a security concern.
+
+I'm going to lump the last 4 together because the only thing I have to add is that they reduce the password space again and are composition rules.
+
+* A password cannot be a person's name, an e-ID or any word found in the dictionary.
+* A password cannot be any of the following spelled backwards: a person's name, an e-ID or any word found in the dictionary.
+* A password cannot have a repeating pattern (e.g. ababab or abcdefg).
+* A password cannot have a pattern like 'ccNNNNNc' where 'c' represents any character and 'N' represents any number. (These are National Insurance numbers and are widely known on the web.)
+
+## 60 Day Reset
+
+Every 60 days, you are required to reset your password[4]. The NIST password policy guidelines say users shouldn't be required to change their passwords regularly or arbitrarily. If an account is compromised, then it makes sense. But otherwise, you'll just be making everyone increment the last digit in their password every time. Almost no one will create a completely different password when they can just change one character.
+
+Furthermore, all these password rules make it much more difficult to analyze the number of possible passwords. To do that, you would need every e-ID and every word in "the dictionary". Who knows what words are included even. I'm certain that even the administrators have no idea how big the password space is, but it's definitely insufficient. This brings me to my next point.
+
+# Autogenerated Password Patterns
+
+If your password is reset using your security question, or you get your password generated for you at the helpdesk, there seems to be patterns to the passwords. I've noticed after testing this out by resetting my password that the generator always seems to prefer 2 digits and 6 letters. The generator seems to prefer 3 letter sequences with a consonant followed by a vowel followed by another consonant. This makes it easy to pronounce. It always uses lowercase. I don't think I have ever seen it use uppercase. This is why I do not recommend using passwords autogenerated by SIUe. They have patterns. If you obtain an autogenerated password, change it as soon as possible. Since the generator algorithm is closed off, there's no way to know how secure it is. Your best bet is to generate a password yourself using a password manager and memorize that.
+
+# Annoying UI
+## Looks
+Take a look at the creation and maintenance page[5]. I myself am not great at designing graphical user interfaces, but this one is bad. There was a class I had where the professor went over how awful the creation and maintenance page was during the class, but I won't mention who. Some things they noticed on the face of it: For some strange reason, the table has four columns, but the third and fourth column only have one item. The radio buttons get their own separate cells which look awful with the borders. Everything is at the top of the page, not centered. The gray background is very bland and it looks like not much thought was put into the color scheme. And it definitely isn't going to look nice on mobile.
+
+## Input Ambiguity
+The date of birth on the "I want to get an e-ID" option and the "I have an e-ID but I forgot my password" option have 3 separate input boxes! The day and month are dropdowns while the year is a text box. It doesn't indicate how you should enter the year either, as 2 digits or 4 digits. It wants 4. But, if you enter 2, it gives you a generic error message saying the account information is not correct.
+
+The new password and confirm new password fields on the change password page[6] allow you to input in your browser 9 characters, but the server just rejects anything more than 8. It also has text above the input field saying it only allows 8 characters.
+
+## Invalid HTML
+After seeing the poor quality of the subdomain's webpages, I got curious and clicked view source. They were using XHTML 1.0 and the legacy windows-1252 character encoding. After checking all the pages reachable from the radio buttons with the HTML validator at https://validator.w3.org/[7], the results were as expected. Every URL I checked had invalid HTML at the time of this writing:
+
+* https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID[8] (85 errors)
+* https://eid.siue.edu/am/get_e-ID[9] (16 errors)
+* https://eid.siue.edu/am/reset.pl[10] (19 errors)
+* https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password[11] (91 errors, 2 warnings)
+* https://eid.siue.edu/am/bid_lookup[12] (14 errors)
+
+The landing page for the university at https://www.siue.edu[13] also had invalid HTML yielding 13 errors from the validator. Other URLs under the SIUe domain also had errors. These errors are less severe than the creation and maintenance page but still deserve to be addressed. The HTML looks like it was written in an editor, not by a human.
+
+## Usability
+After you submit the change password form[15], you are redirected to a webpage where you have the option to change your secret phrase. You can use the secret phrase to reset your password if you forget it. The problem is the secret phrase works the opposite way than you think it does. You don't select a question and input the answer. You input both the question and answer manually. And then when you go to reset your password, it will give you the answer to the secret phrase and you have to come up with the question. If you think about it for a while, it's not hard to see that some answers correspond to really only one question. So this is not a good scheme.
+
+For example, "The Incredibles" is the hint. You can guess the question "What is your favorite movie?". On the other hand, picking a question from a dropdown box and having a normal security question challenge setup would be a better scheme. If a student isn't aware of how the system works, it might leak sensitive information about them to hackers, especially since they can define their own question and answer.
+
+# Data Stored in Plaintext
+When it lets you change the secret phrase and answer, it literally shows you the existing secret phrase and answer. That means that the question to your secret phrase is not hashed and salted. SIUe has a big database of questions of ~13k active students. And don't forget all past students' questions and answers going back years are still in the system. And their answers to those questions are just sitting on a server somewhere ready for a data breach. This is pure negligence and should be fixed as soon as possible. There's no reason to have personal questions and answers of students sitting on a server somewhere in plain text.
+
+# Denial of Service Vulnerability
+There is a denial of service vulnerability related to the change password form[14]. If you unsuccessfully reset your password more than 5 times, your ability to reset your password will be locked for 24 hours. This password reset attempt limit persists across browsing sessions and IP addresses. It must be stored on SIUe servers. That means anyone can use the people search feature[15], which I covered previously, to scrape for e-ID's. Then, they can spam the password reset form with every e-ID scraped from the search feature. Since it's only necessary to do this once every 24 hours per account, anyone can effectively break the password reset feature for all active students, faculty and staff with a simple Python script.
+
+Of course, students can make a call to the helpdesk to get the password reset limit fixed so they have 5 more attempts within the 24 hours. But it's possible to run this attack continuously with such high volume that even students who call the helpdesk and get a reset on the attempts cannot change their password. I'm not encouraging or condoning denial of servicing the change password feature. I'm only pointing the attack vector exists in the hope that it gets fixed.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password)
+[2: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-63b.pdf](https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-63b.pdf)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/SQL_injection](https://wikiless.org/wiki/SQL_injection)
+[4: https://www.siue.edu/its/eid_faq.shtml#expired](https://www.siue.edu/its/eid_faq.shtml#expired)
+[5: https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID](https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID)
+[6: https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password)
+[7: https://validator.w3.org/](https://validator.w3.org/)
+[8: https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID](https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID)
+[9: https://eid.siue.edu/am/get_e-ID](https://eid.siue.edu/am/get_e-ID)
+[10: https://eid.siue.edu/am/reset.pl](https://eid.siue.edu/am/reset.pl)
+[11: https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password)
+[12: https://eid.siue.edu/am/bid_lookup](https://eid.siue.edu/am/bid_lookup)
+[13: https://www.siue.edu](https://www.siue.edu)
+[14: https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password)
+[15: https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password)
diff --git a/content/post/siue-unauthenticated-smtp-server.md b/content/post/siue-unauthenticated-smtp-server.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c70d426
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/siue-unauthenticated-smtp-server.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "SIUe Unauthenticated SMTP Server"
+date: 2020-09-21T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Email Server
+During my last semester at SIUe[1], one of my professors demonstrated spoofing an email using an unauthenticated SMTP server (smtp.siue.edu) on the university network. I believe the server is still present on the network despite being reported multiple times to IT. It isn't accessible on the public internet, only through the university's network that all students have easy access to. Non-students could also gain access to the network fairly easily while at the university and therefore have access to the email server.
+
+The email server has no authentication whatsoever. You don't have to offer any credentials to send emails. You can't read others' emails, however. This means you don't even need to be a student to send emails. As a non-student, you can access the email server through Telnet and send emails as any student, professor, faculty or staff member. With that, you can send out emails to any email lists. This unauthenticated server has been present on the network for years according to other students I have talked to.
+
+I hope the server gets taken off the network, but this underscores a larger issue. American colleges and universities are institutions with some of the weakest cybersecurity where you would expect better. This makes them easy targets for hackers. The reason is they don't have strong incentives to do better. Unless having poor cybersecurity is going to lose money, business as usual will continue and unauthenticated email servers will stay online.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://siue.edu](https://siue.edu)
diff --git a/content/post/social-media-alternatives.md b/content/post/social-media-alternatives.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e88c733
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/social-media-alternatives.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "Social Media Alternatives"
+date: 2020-12-20T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+You don't want to miss out on social media, but you also don't want to deal with tracking scripts, ads and other nonsense that comes along with using proprietary walled garden platforms. Luckily there are publicly available privacy-respecting alternative front-ends for these popular social media sites:
+
+* Instagram - Bibliogram[1] (source[2])
+* Reddit - Teddit[3] (source[4])
+* Twitter - Nitter[5] (source[6])
+* Youtube - Invidious[7] (source[8])
+
+There is also an Android app in F-droid[9] called UntrackMe[10] which redirects Youtube, Twitter and Instagram links to their free alternatives. Reddit support was just added 2 weeks ago.
+
+I recommend exclusively using the free alternative links when using a web browser. It's also best if you send others the alternative links when sharing content. The alternatives don't always support all the features of the official website.
+
+As a final note, Goolag[11] has been known to block Invidious instances since they drive privacy-conscious users away from youtube.com. In general social media giants tend not to be very friendly to alternatives because they want you using their official website. So don't be surprised if the alternatives suddenly break. There are always free software tools such as youtube-dl[12] you can use to avoid the proprietary walled gardens until project maintainers get the alternatives back up and running.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://bibliogram.art/](https://bibliogram.art/)
+[2: https://sr.ht/~cadence/bibliogram/](https://sr.ht/~cadence/bibliogram/)
+[3: https://teddit.net/](https://teddit.net/)
+[4: https://codeberg.org/teddit/teddit](https://codeberg.org/teddit/teddit)
+[5: https://nitter.net/](https://nitter.net/)
+[6: https://github.com/zedeus/nitter](https://github.com/zedeus/nitter)
+[7: https://invidio.us/](https://invidio.us/)
+[8: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious](https://github.com/iv-org/invidious)
+[9: https://www.f-droid.org](https://www.f-droid.org)
+[10: https://www.f-droid.org/en/packages/app.fedilab.nitterizeme/](https://www.f-droid.org/en/packages/app.fedilab.nitterizeme/)
+[11: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag)
+[12: https://ytdl-org.github.io/youtube-dl/](https://ytdl-org.github.io/youtube-dl/)
diff --git a/content/post/start-fresh-in-every-moment.md b/content/post/start-fresh-in-every-moment.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..df6c8fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/start-fresh-in-every-moment.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+title: "Start Fresh In Every Moment"
+date: 2022-01-31T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Getting the Obvious Out of the Way
+Before I get into this subject, let's get the obvious out of the way so that I don't get misinterpreted.
+
+## People Have Patterns of Thought And Behavior
+Newton's first law of motion states:
+
+> "Objects tend to keep on doing what they're doing unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." - Sir Isaac Newton
+
+The same is true for people. People tend to keep the same patterns of thought and action. That's why we have the word "personality". A personality is just observed patterns in thoughts and behavior. This isn't to say people are incapable of change, just that it's not the default. The default is people keep doing what they're doing.
+
+## You Can't Expect People to Change
+As a consequence, it's foolish to expect people to change. There are special circumstances. Extreme life events change people. Children and adolescents change as they get older. New experiences change people. Sometimes a change in environment can do the trick. But in the general case, you should not expect others to change.
+
+In romantic relationships, it unfortunately happens all too often that one partner expects the other to change or tries to force the change. People make small concessions in relationships, but expecting a partner's core personality or ingrained habits to change is a bad bet.
+
+# Self-Talk
+With all that said, one of the common ways people wreck their lives (besides lying) is through destructive self-talk, a common form of which is telling themselves that they're destined to be the person they were in the past or worrying about who they'll be in the future.
+
+## Being Truthful to Yourself
+Given the obvious facts I stated about the default of people not changing, isn't telling yourself you're going to stay the same just being truthful? I just said not to expect people to change and now I'm saying telling yourself the truth that you probably won't change is bad?
+
+Yes, precisely. One can admit that something is true while also acknowledging that it's not useful to continuously think about it.
+
+I'll use Covid as an example. There are thousands of depressing Covid stats and you're free to read as many of them as you like, but I've been down that road and it only lead to despair. The most relevant truth about Covid is this: If you get the vaccine, social distance, wash your hands, wear a mask, and follow expert guidance then the rest is out of your hands. Continuing to read Covid stats won't benefit you.
+
+There's a false dichotomy that the only two options are facing the cold, hard, depressing truth and telling yourself comforting lies. Either you're a tortured genius or a happy idiot. But this ignores the fact that it's not just the depressing truth which is depressing. It's the constantly thinking about it that's the most destructive.
+
+## Toxic Positivity
+You don't necessarily need to lie to yourself about what's going on in the world not to be depressed. A few people opt for that strategy. They put a positive spin on everything and when that becomes impossible, they outright lie to themselves. This is a form of Toxic Positivity[1].
+
+For examples of toxic positivity, just search Youtube for how to get rich. You'll find clueless one-percenters who genuinely seem to think poor people only exist because they have the wrong mindset. I don't think I need to explain how harmful this is. This extreme can be avoided by just not lying to yourself.
+
+# Starting Fresh in Every Moment
+What does any of this have to do with starting fresh? Well, people tell themselves they can't do things based on past attempts that went badly or imagining things going badly in the future. People with social anxiety imagine that they'll make a fool of themselves in their next interaction which hasn't happened yet. Recovering drug addicts think because they relapse once, they're a user again.
+
+And it might be true that if you relapse then you're likely to become a regular user again. I don't know the odds. But on a personal level, the odds don't matter because it's counterproductive to remind yourself of the bad odds while you're trying to quit.
+
+It's much more helpful to focus on the positives like "If I quit, I'll be healthier." or "Other people quit using, so it's not impossible." Focusing on the positives without deluding yourself isn't anything new. It goes all the way back to the ancient Stoics[2] who invented several techniques for achieving positivity without delusion.
+
+From a subjective perspective, you are always starting fresh. Every moment is a new moment and it's going to be filled with whatever thoughts you happen to have. Reflect on the past and learn from it. Plan for the future. But there's no need to cling to the past and imagined future as final arbiters of who you are or what you're capable of now. The past doesn't make you who you are any more than the thought of money makes you rich.
+
+So if you're waiting for a reason to let go of thoughts of your past or imagined future, I give you permission. Drop the mental baggage and start fresh in every moment. You'll be a better person for it and it'll be better for everyone around you.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Toxic Positivity](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Toxic_positivity)
+[2: Stoicism](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Stoicism)
diff --git a/content/post/statement-of-gpg-key-transition.md b/content/post/statement-of-gpg-key-transition.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d244ac6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/statement-of-gpg-key-transition.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+title: "Statement of GPG Key Transition"
+date: 2021-12-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Date: 2021-12-30
+
+Statement of GPG Key Transition
+
+To replace my GnuPG key, I have set up a new Signify key, and will be transitioning away from my GnuPG key.
+
+The GnuPG key will continue to be valid until 2022-02-01 for the purpose of verifying this transition statement. Please do not use it send me encrypted emails anymore.
+
+This message is signed by both keys to certify the transition.
+
+The old GnuPG key's primary key fingerprint was:
+BF49E81C1D888979B6506B225B4FE8CA89C066C0
+
+The new Signify key is:
+RWTJ8JZMFWhB2Ya9GyXbmOQKSxd/x57IV/oNo6/nl344CR1aqf/OgPXf
+
+If you have my old GnuPG key, you can verify this transition statement with:
+gpg2 --verify gpg-signify-transition-statement.txt.asc
+
+You can verify the new Signify key with:
+signify -V -e -p key.pub -m gpg-signify-transition-statement.txt
+
+Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience.
+
+Nick
+
+
+Link(s):
+[gpg-signify-transition-statement.txt.asc](../../../../resource/gpg-signify-transition-statement.txt.asc)
+[gpg-signify-transition-statement.txt.sig](../../../../resource/gpg-signify-transition-statement.txt.sig)
diff --git a/content/post/stop-amazons-police-state.md b/content/post/stop-amazons-police-state.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..97140f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/stop-amazons-police-state.md
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+---
+title: "Stop Amazon's Police State"
+date: 2020-11-20T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Amazon's Orwellian Surveillance Hellscape
+Amazon is providing police departments with warrantless access to thousands of Ring doorbell cameras giving cops unpredecented, persistent surveillance capabilities of private homes and neighborhoods. This is yet another dangerous partnership between the empire of the megacorporations[1] and the state.
+
+Police don't even need probable cause to request the Ring camera footage. If the "owner" of the camera refuses to share footage with the police, the real owner (Amazon) can provide the footage anyway. There are no safeguards and there's no accountability in place to protect the footage. This persistent dragnet neighborhood video surveillance is incompatible with democracy and must be stopped. Sign the petition at www.cancelring.com[2] and tell your local officials to cancel these partnerships that violate our basic civil liberties.
+
+This petition focuses on ending Amazon+Police partnerships, but that doesn't go far enough. Amazon Ring cameras should not be allowed to exist. Ring doorbell cameras are an instrument of Big Brother whether or not there is a formal partnership between local police departments and Amazon. If someone you know uses one of these cameras, show them the petition and ask them to remove the camera from their home. Good neighbors don't set up persistent, warrantless Big Brother surveillance of their neighborhood.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://stallman.org/amazon.html](https://stallman.org/amazon.html)
+[2: https://www.cancelring.com/](https://www.cancelring.com/)
diff --git a/content/post/struggle-to-graduate-without-nonfree-software.md b/content/post/struggle-to-graduate-without-nonfree-software.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9942aec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/struggle-to-graduate-without-nonfree-software.md
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+---
+title: "Struggle to Graduate Without Nonfree Software"
+date: 2021-10-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Introduction
+From the title of this journal entry alone, you might think it's about my story struggling to graduate without nonfree software. But I've already beaten that topic to death on this journal. It's time for someone else's story: Wojciech Kosior. He faced the same sort of difficulties graduating that I did, except he graduated. His story is one of incredible determination and persistence. He fought hard to graduate in freedom and won. I don't know of many people with the resolve displayed in his narrative.
+
+The revised narrative of his struggle can be found on gnu.org[1]. It went through at least 20 revisions before being published. Many of the details were stripped. He kindly sent me the unedited original copy of his narrative which I personally find more inspiring than the one on gnu.org. I modified the narrative's formatting to make it more presentable here. It was originally sent as a .org. If you want the original .org file (for emacs), I've uploaded it to this web server for download[2].
+
+If you enjoyed reading my story struggling to graduate without nonfree software, then you're in for a treat. Without further introduction, I present to you Wojciech Kosior's narrative.
+
+# Narrative
+Title: Struggle to graduate without nonfree software
+Author: Wojciech Kosior
+License: CC0
+
+Due to pandemic many people experienced deaths of their relatives, others became jobless. Those are some severe losses, many of which couldn't be prevented. At the same time we also witnessed an embrace of proprietary videoconferencing platforms, that brought a huge loss of freedom. Most ppl would disagree over how severe this loss is, but one is certain - it *could* be prevented.
+
+As a university student, I struggled to avoid losing freedom and pass my courses without surrendering to the imposed not-free-as-in-freedom services, often by proposing free/libre solutions instead. I didn't expect to win this fight - but now I think it may happen. I describe my fight below so as to build up and inspire others.
+
+## Studies
+For over 3 years I've been studying informatics at the AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków, Poland. Over that time I was becoming more and more determined to avoid nonfree software. That, among others, meant getting a librebooted ThinkPad and switching to GNU/Linux distros that only include libre packages.
+
+"What about studies?" - one could ask - "Weren't You required to use Windows? Or MS Office? Or some other proprietary tools?"
+
+Actually, a great majority of the jobs could be completed with (or even required) free software. In present times there we have the luxury of having excellent libre operating systems and libre tools for most tasks, including free software implementations of most popular programming languages. On those few occasions some nonfree tool was required, I was either able to convince given professor to let me do a replacement homework (e.g. doing the same exercises under Postgres database instead of Oracle's) or do it at the university during other groups' classes. I admit running nonfree software on someone else's computer doesn't fully solve the problem of nonfreeness and is not something to be proud of. Nevertheless, it just seemed fair.
+
+I was also gradually taking the issue of in-browser javascript more seriously. Web pages' js runs in an isolated sandbox, which makes many ppl believe it's OK even when it's nonfree. Sandbox might indeed solve security issues, but the true problem with proprietary programs lies elsewhere, in taking away of user control. Currently, maintaining one's software freedom in the field of web browsing is not easy. Numerous sites break with js disabled. On many occasions I had to ask colleagues to put me into a Google sheet for something studies-related, because I couldn't do that without js (also, proprietary js is not the only issue with Google services). I only dared to ask them for that, because I knew they were already accessing Google sheets.
+
+## Start of the pandemic
+Without bigger problems I completed the 5th semester of my studies. At the beginning of 6th - the pandemic began. Universities closed, most students traveled home and professors started organizing remote lectures and classes. You guessed it - they all chose proprietary platforms. The ones used were Cisco Webex, MS Teams, ClickMeeting and, duh, Skype. Each of those either doesn't have a free software client or I couldn't find one. Of course, the professors expected everyone to be able to easily connect using web interface. They didn't realize the problem of nonfree js.
+
+Lectures didn't pose a real problem, since they're not obligatory at the AGH. As to lab classes, their form varied from professor to professor. Some only described what they want us to do for homework. Then we had to just upload the completed homework to UPEL (AGH's modified version of Moodle). Some organized non-obligatory consultancies. Many didn't care about actual presence on classes and only wanted student to appear at specified time to interactively hand homework in. Finally, one expected us all to attend the meetings at lab class hours and was very angry about me having issues with it.
+
+What were my actions in those circumstances? I would *very* politely email every single professor who announced something would be done via one of the problematic platforms. In my mails I usually linked the Costumed Heroes video and some free videoconferencing tools (Jami, Jitsi Meet). I often remarked, that the service used by them has no free software client available. Centralized nature of those services and surveillance being possibly conducted through them are also severe issues, but to me - software freedom was the decisive factor.
+
+I'm under impression, that few professors didn't understand the issue or only understood it partially. Hence, replies like "the solution would be to run the program in a virtual machine" or "You don't need the source code to use the service". Fortunately, even though many professors were irritated by my emails, most of them eventually agreed to for example use another tool (Jami/Jitsi Meet) to receive my homework. I think what helped me a bit is the fact, that they are all teaching some field of computer science. Otherwise, the fraction of those who don't understand the problem would be way higher. That's why I think it could be more difficult on other faculties or in case of lower-level education (e.g. schools).
+
+## 6th semester
+As the universities were closing, I was in the middle of doing some kind of group homework for machine learning course. It was quite natural, that I asked one person doing that homework with me to forward what the professor said during Skype sessions. She later continued to do me this favor and everything else could be done in free software.
+
+The first real problem was with the artificial intelligence methods course (I shall later just call it AI). It was rotational and we managed to have one lab class on-site before the pandemic. The homework for this class was to be done in proprietary Framsticks application. When emailed, the professor allowed me to do some neural networks exercise instead. But I did have double stress, because I then had to ask him to provide me with the required materials using some method other than Google Drive (which I would be able to download from, but only if someone gave me a link to a single file and not to a folder).
+
+Later in march we learned another professor teaching AI wanted us to complete an online NVIDIA course and send him a certificate. This was supposed to serve as a replacement for a single lab class. The course, obviously, required nonfree js. I wrote an email to that professor, but did not receive any response.
+
+Also in the early part of the semester, I was supposed to hand in distributed systems homework via Webex. When I emailed the professor, he agreed to use Jami for that. That was a little victory, but classes of this course were also rotational - I knew I would have to ask 3 more professors with subsequent homework. The grading system was such, that if one refused, I would fail the entire course.
+
+Near the end of March, system programming (i.e. meddling with guts of Linux) classes started. Those were obligatory and during Webex meetings students would present their homework. The professor didn't want to lose time connecting to other services than Webex. At that point, his response didn't give any hope. Especially that I knew him from earlier semester and he didn't seem very kind. I kept uploading homework exercises to UPEL but I was to live in uncertainty through the Easter and long after it.
+
+At some point I emailed two professors about the use of nonfree platforms for lectures. One didn't respond at all and the other replied rudely and seemed not to understand the issue. That's how I stopped caring about lectures.
+
+It was April. I presented second distributed systems homework. But even in cases proprietary videoconferencing platforms were not needed, there were other difficulties. For example, some lab classes assumed using Java packages from Maven repository. Even though I knew given library is free software, I would always attempt to avoid using a language-specific package manager for it. That's because repositories used by tools like Pip (for Python) and Gradle (for Java) allow some sorts nonfree packages and also lack good security verification. This deserves its own essay. Eventually, I would install libre libraries from there, but only if they were not packaged for my distro and there were too many dependencies to install them manually. You can imagine, that this costed some time and on my faculty - time is precious.
+
+Also in April, the lazy "do an NVIDIA course" professor sent us a list of students who did not send a certificate. Surprisingly, my name was not on the list. Instead, I was rated 100% for this exercise. I concluded, that he just wrote down surnames of all students who sent him emails with certificates and also mistakenly included my surname from my mail... I did not want to be a cheater, so I later emailed him about his mistake, but he didn't respond anyway.
+
+More problems with AI were to come. Another professor wanted us to do homework in proprietary Choreographe simulator. After learning about the nonfreeness issue, he proposed that I use Webots instead and I agreed.
+
+Around that time I was to realize, that the most unkind professor of that semester wold the one giving software engineering course. The course had the form of a group project, but we were still expected to appear on meetings every week. The professor first didn't answer my emails and eventually wrote a long reply in which he threatened, that if I miss one more meeting, I'm going to fail the course. He wrote why he thinks I'm obliged to connect to ClickMeeting and the way he wrote that showed great annoyance or even anger. He did, however, write, that he doesn't care whether I connect directly or my voice reaches him through colleague's computer. And that's what we did. Me and 1 buddy from my project group were connected through Mumble and he was also connected to the meeting (as he would anyway). He moved his microphone close to the speaker so that I could hear the others and vice-versa. That was so provisional I am very surprised it worked!
+
+May. Distributed systems homework presented to 3 professors and 1 left to convince. Another AI homework was also supposed to be handed in interactively, but the professor first agreed to use Jami and later decided, that he's already seen so much AIML stuff, that he doesn't even need my commentary.
+
+End of May was when the situation seemed to be the most overwhelming. There was yet no course I knew for sure I would pass, there were still many emails to be written and I was already having delays with some homework due to lack of time.
+
+In June the semester was theoretically ending, but in practice grades could be given until the middle of September. Everyone, who hoped they would be able to conduct some classes at the university, now knew it wouldn't be possible. One of those ppl was the last professor I had to hand in distributed systems homework to. Although he was not eager to use another platform, he agreed for Jitsi Meet, which doesn't require installation.
+
+Professor giving network security course also put up with the impossibility to organize stationary finals, as he used to. He instead gave us some exercise to complete and upload. Unfortunately, we were supposed to use Cisco Packet Tracer to simulate networks. The professor was unkind at some point earlier, so I was not sure if he would allow me to do some replacement task. But he did. The new exercise involved Mininet and nDPI library.
+
+The last AI homework could only be fully done using Jupyter Notebook on Google servers. I did what I could on a local Jupyter Notebook instance. I did not need to have this 100% completed in order to pass the course.
+
+System programming classes were also finishing in June. I wrote another email to the professor. I was afraid he would just say I failed, but no. He said he would look at my solutions and decide and *maybe* it would be possible to meet at the university in September. Hence, I had some hope, but no guarantee.
+
+Now, another, bigger problem - the compilers course included an exam, that was supposed to be done through MS Teams. I wrote to the professor preparing it. Even though he always seemed to like me, he did not (could not?) give me an option to write the exam some other way. I though I would fail then, but funnily - Teams failed to handle the load of over 100 students connecting and the exam was instead conducted via email (sending photos of solutions).
+
+In that semester we already had seminar classes. The professor wanted students to present their prototypes on some meeting, but I didn't have mine ready yet, so he allowed me to finish it during summer holidays and eventually I avoided the meeting. I also had little contact with my thesis supervisor. We were to talk in July and that was the first time free software videoconferencing failed me by refusing to work properly (there were some issues earlier, but not so severe). At least it didn't happen during handing in of some homework...
+
+In summer I also had to do an internship. I first backed out of a well-paid (as for internship) offer after learning, that there is no way to negotiate a contract, that would allow my code to be released as free software. I eventually did another, unpaid internship, which had the benefit, that I was able to spend some of its time working on my thesis.
+
+In September I finally met with the professor and presented my system programming homework. He turned out not to be as unkind as he seemed before.
+
+So after all the struggle I finally passed the summer semester and even had decent grades. What at some point seemed almost impossible, was now a reality.
+
+## 7th semester
+The winter semester was the last semester of the first-cycle studies, so it was shorter - all classes had to finish by the middle of December or earlier. Before the semester started in October, university had specified some formal rules as to what platforms and tools can be used to conduct classes and exams. This was mostly to comply with GDPR. Allowed videoconferencing solutions lecturers and teachers can officially use were MS Teams, Cisco Webex, ClickMeeting and Google Meet, although didn't see anyone use the last one.
+
+This time most professors required presence on meetings. The only exception was introduction to security engineering where the professor announced there would only be consultancies and uploading homework on time equals presence on lab classes.
+
+There was a cryptography course. The professor did not agree to use Jitsi Meet citing too big amount of work to bother using another platform. Even though he suggested that I write to university authorities, I didn't do that, for reasons not related to the topic. I just kept writing tests (those were conducted through UPEL, so it was not a problem for me) and uploading Jupyter notebooks with completed exercises. This course didn't involve anything like interactive handing of homework, so the only problem were my "absences".
+
+Situation with computational geometry course was very silimar, with the exception, that all homework was to be presented through MS Teams.
+
+Another course I chose was optimization of code for different architectures. I knew the professor teaching this. During fortran course on one of the earlier semesters he required us to use proprietary ifort compiler. On the other hand, he was one of the professors showing appreciation for stuff I do well. When I emailed him, he was kind, although afraid of using any other platform that those allowed. He suggested me to contact student council of our faculty to suggest Jitsi Meet to dean and eventually get it hosted by university itself. The professor even said, that he would then happily use it for all his classes. Unfortunately, student council never responded to my emails. I was allowed to gain presence by writing reports instead of participating in the meetings. This took more of precious time, but I was glad anyway.
+
+For second and final part of the seminar course the professor made obligatory consultancies. He initially wanted to stick to allowed platforms and even pointed out, that Jitsi Meet also runs on someone else's server and hence - is not safer. I then responded with my counterpoints and once again asked politely that we use Jitsi Meet. I made it clear, that I'd rather fail, than use any proprietary platform and he finally agreed.
+
+For optimization of code we were also supposed to be presenting our homework interactively, 2 times during the semester. The first time was at the beginning of November and the professor wrote, that he agrees to use platform not from the official list. He just noted, that he doesn't take responsibility for security of any data exchanged through it.
+
+Then I had an argument with my supervisor, who got annoyed with me (although there were probably other factors, too) and gave an ultimatum that I use MS Teams. I didn't agree and my supervisor was supposed to inform dean about resignation from supervising. Perhaps the dean didn't read the email? I'm just guessing. Anyway, I wrote again a few weeks later and even borrowed some electronics from my supervisor - almost as if the argument never happened.
+
+Around that time someone told on the professors giving security course and they started organizing classes via MS Teams, but they still didn't require students to do anything during those classes and they allowed me to just send them emails at the right time and they marked me present based on that. There were also difficulties with Windows VM being required for some exploit exercise - but I eventually also avoided Windows, even though it required some additional work.
+
+At the beginning of December it was clear, the only problems were cryptography and geometry. I wrote another email asking for a way to pass the first one. The professor told me to implement some hashing algorithm in Jupyter. I suspect he might have needed that as a teaching resource. I chose BLAKE2b, implemented it, sent it to him and this way passed the course and even got the highest grade for it, despite my mistakes in tests. That was surprisingly easy.
+
+I also wrote to the professor giving geometry course. At first, she didn't respond. The semester was supposed to end on 15 December (although only some of the professors gave final grades that early). Before that I wrote another email and I eventually received a determined response, that I am being failed for absences. She did not mention some of my homework being uploaded late, but I guess that's good for me.
+
+At that point I was going to stop arguing. My supervisor in an email got back to the topic of meeting on MS Teams and I responded, that I'm not going to pass this semester and thanked for cooperation.
+
+Then, someone convinced me not to hesitate to argue more or seek help from university authorities. Or rather, I still didn't want to do the second thing, because I already declared to the professor, that I won't. But I did write subsequent emails. She agreed for an online meeting on 8 January... but on MS Teams only. And I refused again and yet again wrote why it is wrong to fail me like that. She was not responding to all of my emails and I ended up spending a lot of time waiting for replies. She eventually told me again to contact the authorities for a permission to use another platform and CC'd associate dean in that email. Given that, I no longer felt obligated not to inform him about the issue.
+
+As he's always busy, quite a few reminder emails were needed. In the meantime, the deadline to upload thesis passed. Actually, that was the deadline for those, who wanted to defend in January. Defense in March was still possible, it would just be too late to apply for second-cycle studies - something I wouldn't be interested in, given all the difficulties I faced so far.
+
+The dean eventually responded, but he didn't read into the right email in the thread, so another set of reminders was needed. On 13 January he finally wrote, that he talked to the professor and she would allow me to correct the reports she considered bad. No mention of videoconferencing services. Was there another misunderstanding?
+
+The email i received from the professor explained the situation to me. The dean pleaded for her to allow me to pass without interactive presentation of my homework. So she would then give me a positive grade and I would pass the semester, right? In theory only.
+
+She then wrote about how bad my homework is. I never claimed it to be perfect, because it was all done in a hurry and I even couldn't fix some problems I knew about. But I don't think it was bad either, especially considering the mere amount of it. She eventually wanted me to correct 2 exercises. So I did. I finally uploaded those on 15 January. I had to actually wait 4 more days for the grade, but I got it. I finally passed my 7th semester.
+
+Now, there are still some possible pitfalls, e.g. getting statement from my supervisor. But after a month of stagnation the case seems to be finally heading into the right direction.
+
+When I look behind, I'm actually glad I acted how I acted. Perhaps I won't be able to please those who want to see me graduate. But I don't think graduating by surrendering to nonfree platforms would bring any long-term benefits. Only more compromises. Come back in some time to see how this compromise-less effort ends. This article will be updated :)
+
+## Notes
+I called all university teachers professors, although only the Framsticks and seminar ones have that title. 
+
+# Concluding Thoughts
+This first draft doesn't say it, but Wojciech ended up graduating and successfully defending his thesis. Hurray!
+
+After reading his inspiring narrative, I couldn't help but wonder what it was that allowed Wojciech to succeed where I failed. Is it because AGH was ranked by surveys and magazines as one of the best Polish universities? I don't think that necessarily had anything to do with it. Is it because Wojciech had more determination than I did? Maybe.
+
+I believe at some point Wojciech and I both asked someone else to use proprietary software on our behalf. Wojciech made the point in his narrative that since others were going to use it anyway, it probably didn't diminish their freedom more by assisting him. Wojciech and I both resorted to using proprietary software on others' computers as well. Wojciech admitted that he was not proud of this and I ended up regretting doing it. But those are similarities. They don't account for the difference in outcome.
+
+There is however one major difference between mine and Wojciech's situation: money. In Poland, attending university is tuition-free for nationals. In the United States, college is very expensive. Since I'm not wealthy, continuing college for me would've meant thousands of dollars in student loans every semester. Every time I failed a class for refusing proprietary software, that would've been money down the drain. If college were tuition-free in the United States, I'd consider returning because even if I failed for refusing proprietary software, I could try again. It would only cost my time. Unfortunately free college in the United States doesn't seem likely within the near future.
+
+In conclusion, I think the cost factor made a major difference in the outcome. Did it make *the* difference? I don't know. Nonetheless, I salute Wojciech for his dogged persistence in completing his studies in freedom. He's the only other person I know of who insisted on his computing freedom to the point of being willing to fail classes. We need more stories like his. Success or failure doesn't matter. What matters is putting pressure on the educational system to transition to free software. Even a small number of vocal students fighting for their computing freedom in universities has the potential to break big tech's stranglehold on education.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: gnu.org: How I Fought to Graduate Without Using Nonfree Software](https://www.gnu.org/education/how-i-fought-to-graduate-without-using-non-free-software.html)
+[2: Original .org File](../../../../resource/narrative.org)
diff --git a/content/post/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md b/content/post/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1947ccb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Taking Back The Web With Haketilo"
+date: 2022-04-08T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+About a month ago, I announced[1] my LibrePlanet presentation "Taking Back The Web With Haketilo". In case you missed the livestream, there's now a final, edited copy available on the LibrePlanet website.[2] Find the direct link here.[3]
+
+There is room for self-improvement, but I think the final copy turned out fine and I attribute that to the rehearsing I did the weeks prior to the talk. If you have extra time, please also watch Amin Bandali's talk "The Net Beyond The Web".[4] Find the direct link here.[5]
+
+Diversity of opinion is important when we're talking about solutions for the Web. I shouldn't be the only voice on such a big topic. So if you watch my presentation, please watch his as well.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Come Watch Me Present at LibrePlanet](../../../../2022/03/14/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022/)
+[2: LibrePlanet Link (my talk)](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo/)
+[3: LibrePlanet Direct Link (my talk)](https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/2710/neptune-saturday-1430.webm)
+[4: LibrePlanet Link (Amin's talk)](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-net-beyond-the-web/)
+[5: LibrePlanet Direct Link (Amin's talk)](https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/2711/saturn-sunday-1620.webm)
diff --git a/content/post/the-addiction-to-thinking.md b/content/post/the-addiction-to-thinking.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dfe790c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-addiction-to-thinking.md
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+title: "The Addiction to Thinking"
+date: 2021-02-06T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Disclaimer
+I said in a previous post[1] that posts tagged spirituality aren't to be interpreted as truth-apt[2] and that I wanted to be clearer about how to interpret these posts. Well this post is an exception. Do interpret it as making truth claims. I'm going to be more rigorous than I normally am in spiritual posts and try not to make any false claims. So let's get started.
+
+# Writing Meditation
+This activity doesn't require you to believe superstitions or unsubstantiated claims as a prerequisite. It's very simple. All you need is a pen and paper. Be sure to use a pen, not a pencil.
+
+Here are the instructions:
+
+> Pick up the pen and hold it to the paper. Whenever you notice a thought that can be written down in words, you write it down. Don't worry about grammar or spelling, that's not the point. Don't worry if it's even coherent or continuous. Don't scratch anything out. Redundancy is perfectly fine. Just write down whatever's on your mind. If it's kind, peaceful, helpful, write it down. If it's hateful, vulgar, taboo, write it down anyway. It's important that you don't censor anything. Just let there be a continuous flow of thoughts from your mind to the paper.
+> 
+> Write until you notice enough thoughts that your mind outpaces your hand. Try to at least fill up 1 full page with thoughts. The more, the better. The goal is to write down as much of your own self-talk[3] as you can.
+
+## Limitations
+This style of meditation has limitations that don't inhibit practices like Vipassana[4]. An obvious one is if your hand can't keep up with your mind then you miss some thought-material. Another limitation is you can only capture a rather small fraction of thoughts. A significant portion of your thoughts aren't words and sentences. They're images, memories, abstract concepts, and emotions.
+
+None of that matters for our purposes. What matters is you end up with a tangible object to reference. Please do it before you continue reading. You won't get the full benefit otherwise.
+
+Now read the whole paper back to yourself. If you did the exercise correctly your writing will sound very unstructured. The important thing to realize is this: While you were writing your thoughts down, you were noticing them. Otherwise how could you have written them? But in normal everyday experience, you are not noticing them. Just because you stopped writing them down, just because you stopped paying attention to them doesn't mean they went away. That constant flow of thought is still there. It's just in the background.
+
+# Insanity
+If you wrote for long enough you might notice certain things reading it back. For example you might notice you had the same thought 3 times in a row. Imagine if you were having a conversation with another person and they repeated themselves 3 times in a row. You would probably be very confused.
+
+You might notice in your writing things you already know. In fact all of your thoughts might be things you already know. Imagine if you were invited into someone's home and they started telling you what it looked like. "The walls are white. The door is made of wood. There's a painting in the hallway". That would be strange. But this is exactly the character of the conversation going on in your own mind.
+
+If you're an insecure person with self-doubt then you might have written "I'm useless. I can't accomplish my goals. I should just give up". Even the confident have insecurities. But those aren't fruitful thoughts. If you talked to someone else that way "You're useless. You can't accomplish your goals. You should just give up" you might catch a straight right hand to the jaw. Nevertheless you talk to yourself that way continuously.
+
+Point being most of us live our lives spellbound by this endless stream of thought. Thinking thinking thinking... from the moment we wake up in the morning until we close our eyes to sleep at night, from cradle to grave. We live our lives in a thought-trance with no obvious way out. You could probably stick your hand on a hot stove for 5 seconds if you really wanted to. But even if your life depended on it you could not stop thinking even for a minute.
+
+This incessant thinking, this addiction to thought, is a form of insanity. You'll never hear about it in the media though because an addiction that everyone suffers from is no addiction at all. It's just "life".
+
+# Unawareness of Thought Is the Problem, Not Thought Itself
+None of this is new information. Contemplatives have said for centuries that being "hypnotized" by your own thoughts in every moment is the normal way of being. That is to say you aren't in the mode of noticing your thoughts most of the time. You're simply thinking without knowing you're thinking. Although contemplatives have talked about this mostly in religious contexts, there's no reason you can't recognize this fact of the mind firsthand in a secular context. That was the goal of the writing exercise.
+
+I have to clarify that thinking is an absolutely necessary faculty. It's necessary for survival and human progress. For instance all technology first began with a thought. So thought is not the enemy here. The problem is thinking without being aware of it. As contemplatives through the ages have discovered, having that background stream of thoughts is a primary source of human suffering. Reason being that internal conversation, even for the most average people, is often negative and, as I discussed, sounds like how someone in a mental asylum might communicate.
+
+# Life is Pain
+There may be no more important fact to realize if you want to lead a fulfilling life than this one: Throughout the course of a normal human life, the quality of one's mind determines quality of one's life. If you go through life entranced by your thoughts as most of us do, you will lead a life of dissatisfaction. You'll never be fully content with the present moment. In my own experience and others', even the best days of our lives don't quite cut it. In ancient Indian literature, this is known as dukkha[5].
+
+# An Alternative, Perhaps?
+Mystics, yogis and monks that have spent decades doing nothing but meditating in caves have suggested that there are alternatives to living entranced by your thoughts. They've suggested that contentment is actually a learnable skill. To most people it sounds strange that one could learn to be content. It's thought that contentment arises out of favorable life circumstances. This is contradicted by scientific studies showing people don't report being much happier given increases in income once the threshold for basic needs is met.
+
+Unless you believe all the contemplative literature over the millenia is merely a product of mental illness and self-deception, you have to admit some people seem to have found an alternative to being entranced by thought, to being perpetually dissatisfied with life. Once you admit that, you also have to admit that if it was possible for them, then it just might be possible for you too.
+
+And the alternatives to dissatisfaction don't require you to ignore bad things happening in the world or accept religious dogma. They just require a shift in consciousness. For some the shift is gradual taking many years of practice. And for others like Eckhart Tolle[6] it's instantaneous.
+
+## Is Spirituality For Everyone?
+Now I'm not saying there's an alternative for everyone. Oftentimes an interest in spirituality comes after seeing the mechanics of suffering. It's not hard to notice. I couldn't have been older than age 12 when I saw it. I wanted something. I got it. I was satisfied for an instant before it wore off and I wanted something else. At that point I had the revelation that the nature of the mind is to never be satisfied. At the time, like most westerners, I made nothing of it. I assumed that was the way life was and it couldn't be any other way. It wasn't until I neared adulthood that I sincerely considered the possibility of alternative mind states.
+
+There is a basic level of introspection required to notice the mechanics of suffering and to become suspicious of alternative ways of being. In my own experience I can't imagine how you couldn't notice the mechanics of suffering. To me it's so plain and obvious I recognized it as an adolescent. But there are people that go their whole natural lives not being the slightest bit curious about why they suffer. Some people are so "grounded" that frankly only psychoactive substances can get them to notice that experience can be vastly different than the usual. But most people, especially westerners, prematurely assume introspection offers nothing of practical importance.
+
+# Noticing Thoughts
+Even if your goal isn't to be the next Eckhart Tolle it's not a bad idea to keep in mind what it was like to read back your own thoughts written on paper. The next time you're sad, frustrated or depressed, just notice the mechanics of your suffering. Notice the undercurrent of thought. The paper and pen were only there to help, but you don't need them. You can actually notice more when you're not limited to what you can write on paper. Maybe it's not your internal dialogue that's causing the suffering. Maybe it's a bad memory. Whatever it is, try being aware of it.
+
+The final point I want to make is that every claim I've made about the mind in this post can be tested in your own experience. You don't have to take my word for it. If you don't believe that unawareness of thought is a primary cause of suffering then all I can do is urge you to do is pay closer attention. It's just a common fact of experience and you don't have to accept any unsubstantiated claims to recognize how distracted you are all the time. You don't have to accept unsubstantiated claims to suspect that others have found alternative ways of existing in the world and that maybe you can too.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: /2021/01/17/on-spirituality](../../../../2021/01/17/on-spirituality/)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Truth-apt](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Truth-apt)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Self_talk](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Self_talk)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Dukkha](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Dukkha)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle)
diff --git a/content/post/the-cult-of-productivity.md b/content/post/the-cult-of-productivity.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b50f146
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-cult-of-productivity.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+title: "The Cult of Productivity"
+date: 2021-05-21T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Education
+I can't speak for eastern education since I'm not familiar enough with it, but in the entire western education system, we are never taught how to live fulfilling and meaningful lives. In my estimation, this is a profound gap in education. If you don't know how to live a fulfilling life, what does any other knowledge matter? It won't satisfy you anyway.
+
+You might think that an education system couldn't, or shouldn't teach students how to live. But it can easily be achieved while avoiding dogmatism by simply leaving the class open-ended, meaning that everyone gets to come to their own conclusion to the question of how to live life. No student is ever to be told "This is what life is all about and you better agree or else". Instead they're to be told "No one can tell you what your life should be about except yourself. This class is here only to guide you".
+
+In a way, life purpose is implied in the existing education and economic system itself. You have to be productive and score high marks on tests so you can advance to the next grade level where you'll be productive and take more tests. You do that until you graduate after which point you'll ideally voluntarily do it again for at least another 4 years in college. Then you get to work.
+
+# Work
+With work, you start all over again. You start out at the bottom of the food chain fetching coffee for those "more important" than yourself in the organization. You suck up to everyone above you, working your way up the corporate ladder until most of your life is behind you. Then finally, with a lot of luck, you occupy an important position in the organization. You've finally "arrived" and it's not the deliverance you thought it was.
+
+With most of your years behind you, you're nearing "retirement age". That's when you can finally quit "the game" and really start living. With all those years of studying and working under your belt, you've earned the right to do what you want for the rest of your life. The catch is, for one, you'll be too old and decrepit to enjoy any of it. And for two, even if you're still in good health, you never learned how to enjoy life and have no practice living in the present, so it's almost certain you're going to waste your money living a life that doesn't actually fulfill you in any meaningful way.
+
+Congratulations. You've just wasted the one and only life you have. But how did this happen?
+
+# The Cult of Productivity
+The simple answer is we are living inside a kind of productivity cult. But what is a cult really? One answer is a cult is a set of people with extreme dedication to unquestioned, misplaced assumptions. The Cult of Productivity is the unquestioned assumption that the real goal in life is to be productive all the time, to keep yourself busied and distracted through production until you die.
+
+There are people I've come across in life that fit the description I just illustrated. They spent their whole life waiting for the future, waiting for that final stage of the game where they could finally enjoy themselves, whether it be being at the top of the corporate ladder or retirement. As they discovered, it's a total hoax. The "final stage" in the productivity game won't bring any more lasting fulfillment than the initial stage because the mindset of waiting for deliverance at some future point has already been cemented in over decades of conditioning.
+
+The problem is the unquestioned assumption that it's always a good thing to be productive, to be getting things done. This is essentially to say "Life is all about the future" because if you're always "getting something done", you're never at a point where you can just be done and enjoy it. Despite this, if you say "I got a lot done this week", you're likely to be congratulated by others. "Keeping busy" is seen as inherently good.
+
+Now I"m not saying getting things done is bad if that's what you want to do. But what people don't understand, mainly because our education and economic systems have conditioned them not to understand, is that "Getting Things Done" doesn't get you anywhere in terms of fulfillment. At best, after you complete a big project, you'll be satisfied for a day or a week before you need something else. Just consult your own memory. What's the greatest work-related achievement you ever accomplished? How long did it hold you over before you felt the desire to start something new? My guess is not very long.
+
+# Deprogramming Yourself
+## Challenging Assumptions
+To uncondition ourselves from this cult of productivity, we have to question the basic assumptions. Why is it a good thing for instance to "Keep Busy"? There are people that Keep Busy not because that's what they want to do, but to avoid their own thoughts. If that's why someone is Keeping Busy, then it can be a very bad thing. Work isn't the only way to busy the mind. Overeating, drug addiction, social media addiction and smartphone addiction also keep people busy, but they're not good.
+
+And what about "Getting Things Done"? That's not always good either. If you're Getting Things Done just for the sake of it and not because it's what you want, that can come through in your work. For instance, I write blog posts when motivation strikes. That's why my blog doesn't have a defined schedule. Otherwise I would just be writing for the sake of Getting Something Done, not enjoying myself doing it.
+
+Another personal example is my interest in living in a monastery as a monk for a few years. When I bring this up, many western people ask me "What's the point? What does it accomplish?" as if I always need to be accomplishing something. I always reply to that with rhetorical questions: "Why does there have to be a point? What does Getting Things Done ultimately accomplish? Isn't endless production of labor wasting one's life?".
+
+Cults can't withstand sincere skepticism. So the best way to challenge the cult of productivity is by asking questions, challenging the basic assumptions as I've been doing. Again, I'm not saying productivity is a bad thing. I'm only just saying it shouldn't be accepted as an unquestionable good.
+
+## Practicing Unproductivity
+Experiencing the benefits of unproductivity can be a strong antidote to the cult of productivity. Watch a movie. Take a walk/hike. Spend time with friends/family. Don't learn anything. Don't create anything. Don't clean your house. Don't make plans. Don't try to improve yourself in any way. Turn off your phone and spend some time unplugged. Just practice existing in the world without "accomplishing" anything extraordinary. Most importantly, don't make any apologies for it.
+
+Now I'm not giving a free pass to be lazy and not hold your own weight in society. That's not what I mean by unproductivity. All I mean is taking some time to be unproductive and not feel bad about it. "Unproductive" has become a pejorative, for no good reason really. It's actually healthy to be unproductive sometimes, something we in modern society never emphasize.
+
+# Conclusion
+In conclusion, just ask questions and practice unproductivity. Why is working long hours something to be proud of? How much of your job is actually productive and how much is just procedure? Would you be more productive during work if you spent more time being unproductive outside of work? What unproductive activities do you enjoy? Is all the production of labor in the world really needed or would we be just as happy producing far less? Do we even need as much production of goods as we have? 
+
+See? Questioning the assumptions of the cult of productivity is easy. You can apply these questions to your own personal life and come up with new ones. All it takes is some out-of-the-box thinking. You can encourage others to do the same and deprogram themselves. Form your own opinions. Don't just go along with whatever the corporate media and the government tells you. They want good, obedient workers that produce without ever questioning why. But you don't have to blindly follow what they say. Choose to be your own independent thinking person. I'll end with a quote.
+
+> "Think deeply about things. Don't just go along because that's the way things are or that's what your friends say. Consider the effects, consider the alternatives, but most importantly, just think." - Aaron Swartz
+
+Thanks for reading. Don't forget to share this post if you enjoyed it.
diff --git a/content/post/the-eternal-here-and-now.md b/content/post/the-eternal-here-and-now.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a8e7d85
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-eternal-here-and-now.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "The Eternal Here and Now"
+date: 2020-11-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Mental Exercise
+I want to start this post with a few mental exercises. You'll do them first, then I'll try to explain their purpose.
+
+Imagine yourself, in first person, at a place you would like to be. If you like the beach, then imagine yourself at the beach. It's not really important where, just that you can clearly picture it in your mind. Once you have an image in your mind, try to incorporate your other senses as well. If you're picturing a beach, then imagine the sensation of the sand beneath your feet and in between your toes. You can also try the sensation of the wind blowing. If you succeed in that, then add in the sound of seagulls squawking. You can incorporate as many new features into your world as you want. Then when you finish, continue reading.
+
+While you were imagining whatever place you picked, where were you? Where was the place you were imagining? As you incorporated more features into your imagination, where did those new features come from? Where did they go after you finished the exercise?
+
+Time for the second exercise. Stand up if you aren't already. Take 2 steps forward. Where is the first step you took? Take another step. Recall the last step you just took. Where is it now? When is it? Where and when is it while you're remembering it? You can sit back down now.
+
+The third exercise involves paying close attention. Focus your attention on the sensation of breathing. Take a few breaths in and out, just focusing on breathing. If a thought comes careening into consciousness and it interrupts, that's fine. Just observe it the same way you observe your breathing. Expand your awareness as wide as it can go to other sensations in the body such as tension, tiredness, or restlessness. Don't limit yourself to bodily sensations. Emotions of happiness, enjoyment, sadness, anger, disgust and anything without a noun attached to it is also permitted. Nothing that enters consciousness can be invalid. It's all valid and it's all acknowledged. Just observe as much of it as you can. After you finish, continue reading.
+
+Now that you've completed the third exercise, here are some questions. Where were the sensations you noticed?  If you noticed any thoughts during the exercise, where were those thoughts? Were they the same place as the sensations or a different place? Since I'm asking about them, you may be recalling the thoughts and sensations. Where and when is your recollection of your thoughts and sensations?
+
+For more exercises, you can visit headless.org[1]. I'd highly recommend checking out the site. The experiments found there are clever. Different techniques work better for different people. You might find a technique which works better for you than the exercises I've written.
+
+# What's the Point?
+By now I think I've exhausted my allowance of strange sounding questions directed at the reader. For readers that don't get the idea yet, I'm going to come out and say it. All these exercises are trying to get you to experience one thing: The only time and place is here and now. In objective reality, there are separate places and times. Events "happen" here, or there. They happen in the past, present or future. To say everything happens at the same time and place seems like gibberish. Who would say such a thing? The catch is, it's meant in a very specific sense. I'm not denying that there's a real world that persists independently of our experience. Trees that fall down in the forest do make a sound even if no one is there to hear it. I'm merely pointing out that to experience something is synonymous with it appearing in consciousness. Consciousness is the only place for anything to appear. Past events are just memories recalled in the present. Future possibilities are imagined in the present. The reality of our experience is always now. We all live in an Eternal Here and Now.
+
+The Darth Vader of responses to this is "So what? What does it matter?". It can be really hard to show someone why this matters if they don't already see significance. There could be practical benefits to this kind of realization but the primary one is no longer being confused about what you are any more, and no longer suffering for it. People in the midst of this realization sometimes have a peculiar way of phrasing things. Instead of saying "I'm happy", they say "There is happiness" as in "Happiness is present in consciousness". You are never really happy, but there is happiness sometimes. Our usual way of talking is with subject-object form. But the sensation of being a subject in relation to a separate, external world of objects is itself a sensation appearing in consciousness. "There is a sensation of I". As a side note, none of this entails that it's not useful or important to have a sense of personal identity. A sense of identity is socially necessary. The contrapositive of that is that in order to lose your sense of "I", it's useful to undergo social isolation as many monks do.
+
+# Am I just an Observer?
+You might wonder after reading all this if you're just some passive observer to this flow of experience. I've written at length about this before, but it's certain that you don't have free will[2]. It's possible through meditation and other means to notice this firsthand. While it's possible to feel either way about it, that you are doing things or that things are happening to you, we know neuroanatomically that the feeling of being the author of your actions, that you are doing things, has to be an illusion. There's nowhere for the author to be hiding. There are only actions. And in that sense you aren't ultimately responsible for your actions[3], at least not in a way that justifies punishment for the sake of it. It's just because of the way language is that we have to talk about a "do-er" and an "action" as if you could ever really separate the two.
+
+There's no satisfying way I can answer the question directly because the question assumes it makes sense to talk about an observer separately from that which is being observed. My suggestion is that dualistic distinctions about the subjective nature of reality are arbitrary. In subjective reality, there is only a "happening". Consciousness is just the word we use for the space that we imagine the happening taking place in. We imagine that experiences must occur in some place at some time, so we call that place consciousness. The phrase "consciousness and its contents" shouldn't be understood to indicate dualism I think. It's just a way of talking. "Consciousness and its contents" gets across the idea that experience is ever-changing. Everything is transitory because the contents are always changing. And the phrase "a happening" standing on its own better communicates the idea that experience is non-dual, that there is no experiencer in addition to the experience.
+
+One possible answer to the question "Am I just an observer of experience?" is that the question is incoherent. But perhaps the best response is "Who's asking?". In truth, it's far more rich to directly experience no-self, The Eternal Here and Now, rather than trying to nail down answers to philosophical questions about subjectivity. When it comes to non-dual experience, words fail us because they differentiate. There's no substitute for direct experience, so go try some more exercises[4] and see what you find.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.headless.org/experiments-home.htm](https://www.headless.org/experiments-home.htm)
+[2: /2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1](../../../../2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/)
+[3: /2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2](../../../../2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/)
+[4: https://www.headless.org/experiments-home.htm](https://www.headless.org/experiments-home.htm)
diff --git a/content/post/the-meaning-of-life.md b/content/post/the-meaning-of-life.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..651421f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-meaning-of-life.md
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+---
+title: "The Meaning of Life"
+date: 2021-03-04T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Disclaimer
+I said in a previous post[1] that posts tagged spirituality aren't to be interpreted as truth-apt[2] and that I wanted to be clearer about how to interpret these posts. Well this post is an exception. Do interpret it as making truth claims. I'm going to be more rigorous than I normally am in spiritual posts and try not to make any false claims. So let's get started.
+
+# The Meaning of Life
+It's 42, obviously.
+
+More sincerely though, there are many levels on which I can attempt to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?". I'll start with what most people mean when they ask about the meaning of life.
+
+# Religion
+Most people when they ask "What is the meaning of life?" mean it in a religious sense. Now what that means is they are looking for a single, universal, well-defined answer. Although I call this the "religious" sense of the question, I've noticed a person need not actually be religious to treat it seriously. Plenty of atheists treat this question as if it deserves an answer and there are entire secular philosophies with the goal of answering this question. This is the sense of the question for which I have the least respect. To get my point across in one sentence, I can simply ask the rhetorical question "What do you mean by 'meaning of life'?". The phrase "meaning of life" doesn't map to anything in reality. It's an incoherent question. This is obvious to me, but as always, it's challenging to show an idea to be incoherent to those who already accept it. How do you prove something doesn't make sense?
+
+Here's an analogy: In a sense, saying life has no meaning is equally nonsensical as saying it does have meaning, for the same reason that saying free will doesn't exist is nonsensical. How can one prove the non-existence of an incoherent idea? I can prove that a square circle doesn't exist in the sense that it's a logical contradiction but I can't actually go out and collect solid evidence that square circles don't exist because what would that evidence even look like? All I can hope to do is convince you that square circles are incoherent. The same is true about free will, the self and the meaning of life. I can't prove to you that those things don't exist in the sense of drawing up a chart or a logical argument. I can only hope to show you that the concept itself makes no sense by getting you to examine it more closely. So, let's examine the meaning of life, more closely.
+
+## Examining the Meaning of Life
+Human adults have a strong tendency to infer agency in explanations of regular patterns in nature. Children and infants especially do, before they know how the world actually works. There was a study in developmental psychology published at the University of Berkeley in which preverbal infants were also indicated to have this bias. See the link below.
+
+[Academic Paper][3]
+
+This bias is human nature. It remains true across every culture and every society. We didn't understand how life on earth came to be, so what did we do? We invented an intelligent agent called god to be the cause. We didn't understand why the stars shined or why the sun rose or what made the tides go in and out. Must be god or gods. This god or gods also played an important role in giving us a strong sense of morality and ultimate purpose. Morality was simply the will of god. The purpose of life was enter some version of heaven. Even godless religions had enlightenment as a goal. In any case, the point is there was some clear, well-defined goal.
+
+Now, we have scientific explanations for life and the atheists among us have "outgrown" the god hypothesis. And as we learned Darwinian evolution produced life and not a god, we had to think of alternative sources of morality and meaning because god no longer existed in our minds to provide us those things. I've already talked about a moral framework based on hypothetical imperatives which is universal and does not require a god. See the link below.
+
+[Metaethics][4]
+
+So, morality is safe despite a godless world. But meaning is different. It doesn't seem so easily replaced. At least, the strong sense of ultimate purpose we had before seems difficult to replace. The basic problem is this: There's nothing "written in the clouds" telling us the point of life is. Nothing about the way the world is tells us how it should be (morality) and nothing about the way the world is tells us what matters in it (meaning), and it seems that nothing ever could.
+
+Come to think of it, if there were an ultimate purpose we'd probably rebel against it. If you were told what job you had to do for the rest of your life, you wouldn't be happy about it. Now imagine being told the purpose of your whole life as some divine dictate. That's exactly the purpose god served, and it was oppressive.
+
+Ignoring the fact that there's no evidence for god, even if we suppose god could give us ultimate purpose, who is to say god is right about it? Maybe god has the purpose of life wrong. How could we ever demonstrate god has the purpose right beyond assuming it? So god doesn't really provide ultimate purpose either.
+
+Of course I'm talking about the purpose of life as if it makes sense in order to trick your brain into seeing why it doesn't. Why can't we confirm or test the meaning of life? Is it because life has no meaning? Well no. No one has ever proved that life has no meaning. Why is that? You see, the reason for all my rhetorical questions is to get you to see that the "meaning of life" in the universal sense is incoherent. That's the reason these questions don't have good answers.
+
+If you're starting to get uncomfortable that life has no apparent meaning, then consider this: Since the "meaning of life" in an ultimate sense is incoherent, a mere brain-glitch, it makes no more sense to be upset that life has no apparent ultimate purpose than it does to be upset about square circles not existing or that free will is incoherent. There is no physical or nonphysical reality that the phrase "ultimate meaning of life" maps to. It's a null pointer.
+
+Despite the lack of "ultimate" meaning in life, there are other perspectives we can take which do provide purpose. Darwinian evolution is one such perspective.
+
+# Evolution
+Many people mistakenly think that our evolutionary purpose is simply to self-replicate. This is false on its face. Human offspring are not copies of their parents, therefore we don't really self-replicate, even if the offspring have similarities. We are complex survival machines. As Richard Dawkins puts it in his book The Selfish Gene, we are lumbering robots that replicators made to survive, the replicators being genes. In evolutionary terms, ensuring the survival of our genes is our purpose. It's why we are here in the first place.
+
+There is so much more to ensuring the survival of genes than procreation. For instance there is fighting off predators, collecting food and resources to ensure the lumbering robot can maintain and associating with other lumbering robots for survival benefits. One might even self-destruct if it's necessary for the survival of other members of the tribe. Your family shares your genes. So, if they are in danger and you're able to save them, that may override your drive to survive since it would preserve more of your genetic material than protecting yourself would. You can see now that the survival of our replicators that build us doesn't always coincide with our own survival.
+
+The evolutionary perspective is the gene's perspective of what humans are here for. But we are not genes. We are human beings. Genes cannot feel pain, remorse, anger, happiness, ecstasy or contentment. So from a moral standpoint, who cares about genes beyond their necessity for creating us? We have as much moral obligation to preserve our genes as we do to rocks. While the gene's eye view is an interesting perspective for meaning, it's not a satisfying answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?" because it carries no significance besides intellectual entertainment.
+
+The final perspective I want to talk about carries the most significance. If you want to talk about the meaning of life, what better place to start than your own life perspective?
+
+# Personal
+Why should purpose have to be divine? Doesn't it make more sense to talk about meaning and purpose as whatever makes you personally fulfilled? For example your life's purpose could come from relationships, experiences, hobbies, self-discovery, doing good, helping others, etc. The beauty of the personal sense of meaning is you get to decide it. It varies varies from person to person. Everyone can have their own individual, unique sense of purpose in the world.
+
+At the end of the day this is really the only useful notion of meaning. There's no apparent "divine" meaning in the universe and if there were we'd probably rebel against it. We can of course observe our purpose from other points of view such as that of a gene or even a factory. From the perspective of a factory, the purpose of humans is to keep it running. But those perspectives are mostly just entertaining intellectual exercises and not what we really mean when we talk about our lives having meaning.
+
+In summary, you should look inward for meaning. Don't try to find meaning for your life outside of your life. You'll become a nihilist not because your life is meaningless but because you're using a definition of meaning which has no personal significance to you. You're just defining yourself into a corner on purpose. In looking for meaning "out there", you overlook the gold mine of meaning within. You give your own life meaning in each moment and there's no reason it has to come from anywhere else.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: /2021/01/17/on-spirituality](../../../../2021/01/17/on-spirituality/)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Truth-apt](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Truth-apt)
+[3: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~babylab/MaXu2013](https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~babylab/MaXu2013)
+[4: /2020/10/11/metaethics](../../../../2020/10/11/metaethics/)
diff --git a/content/post/the-narrative-self.md b/content/post/the-narrative-self.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..85e3128
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-narrative-self.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+title: "The Narrative Self"
+date: 2021-12-12T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Narrative Self
+We all have a voice inside our heads. This voice tells us a story about how our lives are going. When you identify with that story, that is called your "narrative self". Some psychologists believe that selfhood is narrative in nature. To put it more concretely, they believe our core sense of who we are is shaped by and large by the ongoing narrative taking place inside our heads.
+
+For most people, if not everyone, this narrative can be generalized as "There is some problem that prevents me from being fulfilled, some 'next thing' that needs to be completed before I can be fulfilled." So life takes on the character of a very long emergency where we're confronted with a never-ending series of problems that each promise lasting fulfillment if only we solve the next one.
+
+## Stream of Consciousness
+I believe stream of consciousness writing is best to illustrate this:
+
+> "Did I take out the trash? Wait, I'm kind of thirsty. Where's the orange juice? I thought I...oh there it is! Now which cup do I want? Hm which cup do I want? Which cup which cup which cup? I'm indecisive. I should really work on that. Green? No! I want the orange, the green one's cracked. Actually let's go with green today...who put this cap on I can't get it off...finally! Wait is this juice expired? Better check first...okay good it's not. I have so much work left to do today..."
+
+## Dissatisfaction
+For most of us, our inner monologue is characterized by problem after problem after problem. In my example, the first problem was the trash. Then being thirsty. Then the orange juice. Then which cup to pick. Then being indecisive. Then not being able to open the cap of the orange juice. Then the juice being expired. Having a lot of work left to do. So on and so forth.
+
+Even if you're an extremely lucky person, your inner monologue is bound to be self-referential, boringly repetitive, negative, and problem-focused much of the time. Being identified with this monologue, this story, is a primary source of human suffering. And to be clear, in this context, by suffering, I mean something akin to continuous dissatisfaction, not the "I broke my arm and now I'm in pain!" suffering.
+
+# Strategies For Dealing With the Narrative Self
+There's 2 broad strategies you can employ to deal with this neurotic, problem-seeking voice inside your head. By the way, these strategies are generalized tools against suffering. They're not limited to the narrative self. They can also be used for dealing with physical pain, for instance.
+
+## Stoicism
+The first strategy is changing the narrative. You can recondition yourself to "think positive" by telling yourself a better story. 21st century Stoics such as William B. Irvine employ a number of mental exercises to put life in perspective and reduce suffering. I won't get into Stoicism here as there are many different exercises, but you can see William's website[1] for more information.
+
+## Zen
+The other way to deal with your narrative self involves the self. It is Zen rather than Stoic. Instead of changing the voice in your head, you can deidentify from it. Instead of your experience seemingly being centered around your inner monologue, you can recognize the inner monologue for what it is, simply another object of experience.
+
+# Pros and Cons of Each Strategy
+Both Stoicism and Zen each have their respective pros and cons.
+
+## Stoicism
+The benefits of Stoicism are more immediate and obvious. You can meditate on Zen koans until the cows come home and you're not guaranteed anything even interesting will happen. Stoicism isn't like that. If you try the Stoic practice of negative visualization, contemplating bad things that haven't happened yet, you mentally prepare yourself for their possibility and become more appreciative of what you have. You don't have to spend hours meditating hoping to have a sudden realization that may never come.
+
+Stoicism is also easier to communicate to others as opposed to the non-dualistic nature of mind, for instance. So it's easier to get people to give Stoicism a try. With Stoicism, it's easier to know you're doing it right and, unlike meditation, it doesn't require continuous focused attention, a skill that takes a long time to develop and one most people don't possess.
+
+## Zen
+Zen practices on the other hand can take you to the pinnacle of human experience. You can be delivered, if only for a few moments at a time, into total egoless bliss. A good analogy is running on a hamster wheel. Stoicism can only build a smoother, more comfortable wheel. Zen shows you you're on a wheel and how to step off it. It can show you how radically improved everyday experience can be.
+
+## Both Strategies Together
+There is an abundance of human dissatisfaction and suffering everywhere you look. So it seems irresponsible to dismiss Stoicism in favor of Zen or Zen in favor of Stoicism. It's best to have as many tools against suffering as possible. And there is no reason a person can't practice both Stoicism and Zen.
+
+I encourage practicing whichever works best for you. I'm for reducing suffering in any way that works, as long as it doesn't involve self-deception or hurting others. Speaking of reducing suffering, I'm reminded of a relevant anecdote. It may not be 100% accurate since it was a long time ago, but I'll share what I remember.
+
+# Anecdote
+A philosophy professor I had in community college told the class about an older student who was fairly accomplished by modern standards. I don't remember the details but I always imagine he was educated, had a family, a decent job, all those traditional markers of success. Why then was he taking a philosophy class? The student told my professor that despite his superficial success, he still had no idea how to live life. And this was his reason for taking a philosophy class.
+
+## Lessons Learned
+There are a 2 lessons I take away from that story.
+
+### Most People Are Confused About What Makes Them Happy
+For one, it's common to be confused about how to live your life. Most people just sleepwalk through life doing what others want them to do or trying to fill some predefined role society has carved out for them. And they end up dissatisfied.
+
+### Mainstream Culture Misleads People About Happiness
+For two, mainstream thinking doesn't offer practical, evidence-based strategies for enjoying life.
+
+Schools teach students to be good wagecucks, not happy individuals. The corporate media conflates traditional markers of success with happiness. But traditionally successful people such as the rich and celebrities are no happier than anybody else. Advertising promises that acquiring the latest iBad will bring lasting happiness. Of course that all changes as soon as the next one comes out. And most people pursue happiness by trying to accomplish goals. They're just running on the hamster wheel I mentioned earlier.
+
+When it comes to happiness, there are so many clear indications that people have no clue what they're doing. Most people are just winging it.
+
+There's mass overconsumption. There's a cult of productivity[2]. People constantly do things which are guaranteed to cause misery. Things like procrastinating, scrolling endlessly through social media, telling lies, eating junk food, not exercising, making excuses, self-deception, and prioritizing traditional markers of success over goals they themselves deem more noble.
+
+# Summary
+So why am I writing about this? I'm writing this as a response to the widespread confusion about the causes of happiness. If everyone already understood that achieving the next goal, acquiring more goods and social status doesn't bring lasting peace, I wouldn't be writing this. I'm not here to spoon-feed you the traditional lies about what makes people happy. I'm here to debunk them and promote Stoicism and Zen, highly practical and broadly applicable philosophies for life.
+
+I've already explained the mechanisms by which both reduce suffering in terms of the narrative self. You can reason through it on your own. You don't have to blindly accept what I'm saying. There's plenty of studies out there showing that practices like mindfulness (Zen) and reframing thoughts (Stoicism) drastically improve people's lives.
+
+# One Final Observation
+As a final observation, I've come across people who think they can't be more content before something good happens. They think the only thing they can do to affect their mind is achieve momentary happiness by reaching their next goal.
+
+I've also come across people who think they can radically change their consciousness, be more content in everyday experience before anything good happens, and that momentary happiness isn't all there is.
+
+Both types of people are usually right about their own circumstances.
+
+Which one are you?
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: William B. Irvine](https://www.williambirvine.com/)
+[2: The Cult of Productivity](../../../../2021/05/21/the-cult-of-productivity/)
diff --git a/content/post/the-nonlinearity-of-intelligence.md b/content/post/the-nonlinearity-of-intelligence.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3772ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-nonlinearity-of-intelligence.md
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+title: "The Nonlinearity of Intelligence"
+date: 2020-12-12T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Intelligence is Nonlinear
+The word "sports" covers a wide variety of activities. It's so broad that its usefulness as a word is limited. What can you say about sports? "I like/dislike sports. I play/don't play sports". If you talk about "popular sports", "contact sports" or "mind sports", there's so much more you can say than if you're just talking about "sports". And if you pick a particular sport like basketball then you open up a world of things you can talk about. You can talk about rules of the game, the history, famous players/teams, statistics, etc.
+
+In the same way, you can talk about "intelligence" in a general sense. But when you're just talking about intelligence, it's hard to say much. So instead, to make it more interesting, you can differentiate between mathematical intelligence, social intelligence, historical intelligence, philosophical intelligence, etc. For many people, talking about intelligence in a linear or binary way doesn't accurately describe their situation. Let's look at a few case studies.
+
+## Case Study #1: Kim Peek
+Laurence Kim Peek[1] is the perfect example of the abstraction of general intelligence breaking down. Kim is the inspiration for the movie Rain Man[2]. According to Kim's father Francis, Kim learned to read before age 2. Kim read the left page with his left eye and right page with his right eye. He was able to read 1 page per second remembering nearly all of it years later. He was a human encyclopedia.
+
+Kim also didn't learn to walk until age 4. He was diagnosed severely mentally retarded and had an 87 IQ. He couldn't button up his shirt and had great difficulty socializing and performing basic motor tasks.
+
+In one way, Kim was superhuman. In another way, he was cognitively limited. He possessed a skill to a degree that no one else on the planet was known to have it. He also had limitations associated with being severely mentally retarded. He's no genius, but he's no idiot. He's not really of average intelligence either. And so here you can see the word "intelligence" breaks down. It fails to meaningfully describe Kim. For describing Kim Peek, it's more useful to talk about "types of intelligence", not just generalized intelligence.
+
+## Case Study #2: Daniel Tammet
+For the second case study, we'll look at Daniel Tammet[3]. He is an autistic savant[4]. Daniel set the European record reciting pi to 22,514 digits without a single mistake. He knows 10 languages and is able to become conversational in new languages in only a week. Daniel is able to perform huge math calculations in his head.
+
+Perhaps the most unique thing about Daniel is that he has subjective insight on how he can perform huge mental calculations. In our first case study with Kim Peek, Kim could not articulate how he remembered everything. Most savants can't articulate their abilities, but Daniel can. He wrote an entire book on it called Thinking in Numbers[5]. In his own words:
+
+> "When I multiply numbers together, I see two shapes. The image starts to change and evolve, and a third shape emerges. That's the answer. It's mental imagery. It's like maths without having to think."
+The fact that he is able to introspect on his own savant capabilities is extraordinarily unique and worthy of recognition in and of itself. He also happens to share my feeling about intelligence:
+
+> "I know from my own experience that there is much more to 'intelligence' than an IQ number. In fact, I hesitate to believe that any system could really reflect the complexity and uniqueness of one person's mind, or meaningfully describe the nature of his or her potential."
+Daniel has no apparent mental disability. But he can't leave his house without counting the number of clothes he's wearing. He can't drive. He has a hard time at the beach because of all the grains of sand. Socializing takes much more mental effort for him than it does for a neurotypical person because he has autism. He's so high-functioning that his mental disability is more or less invisible, but that doesn't make his struggles any less real.
+
+# Autism and Savantism
+Less than 1% of the neurotypical population has savant syndrome[6] while that number is up to 1 in 10 with autistic individuals[7]. About half of savants are autistic while the other half have some other developmental disorder.
+
+Autism doesn't guarantee you to be intelligent at something else as a trade-off for social intelligence. Instead, you have up to a 10% chance of being a savant if you're autistic. It also isn't necessarily true that autism causes savantism. But it's clear from the statistics that autism goes with savantism more than neurotypicality goes with savantism. Savantism seem to defy the conventional notion that intelligence is linear and genius is on one end with mental deficiency on the other. It seems to suggest that treating intelligence as linear is an oversimplification.
+
+# Social Consequences
+Although savantism is a fun research topic, there are interesting social consequences of the nonlinearity of intelligence that have nothing to do with savantism or extraordinary mental ability. I'll give an example of nonlinear intelligence in the context of free software.
+
+## Free Software
+There were so many conversations I had about free software[8] during my time as a student. For those who don't know, free software is software that respects the user's freedom. It's more ethical than non-free software[9]. What I came to realize through those conversations is that technological prowess and moral wisdom are two completely separate types of intelligence. But before I explain how I came to realize that, I need to make an important distinction.
+
+There are those that understand something has negative effects yet do it anyway and those that don't understand the negative effects. There are more people that believe in being vegan than there are actual vegans.
+
+Likewise, there are more software engineers that believe in free software than software engineers that write free software. When I distinguish the type of intelligence that is "technological prowess" from the type of intelligence that is "moral wisdom", I'm talking about skilled software engineers who don't understand the harm of writing non-free software, especially if it has been explained to them before how harmful non-free software is.
+
+There were some students and professors I talked to that fell into that category of possessing the technical prowess to write software while lacking the moral wisdom to see the importance of free software. They were great at programming, but did not understand the social consequences of writing proprietary software even after I explained it and provided several online resources. This is not to say they'll never understand. But the point is I understood why free software is important and how non-free software harms society after watching Richard Stallman's TED talk[10] once.
+
+I don't share that to gloat, but to make a point. It was hard for me to understand how others, especially professors far more knowledgeable about software than I am, could not grasp the social necessity of free software instantly upon hearing a single TED talk even with their sincere effort. Eventually, I realized that technological prowess and moral wisdom are two completely separate types of intelligence.
+
+## Moral Wisdom as Intelligence
+Some readers are going to disagree with me referring to "moral wisdom" as a form of intelligence. After all, being a good person and being intelligent are two separate things, right?
+
+I agree, but knowing which actions and policies lead to a better society isn't a matter of being a good person. It's a matter of possessing a certain kind of intelligence that I call "moral wisdom". History has shown the worst[11] atrocities[12] were carried out by people who thought they were doing good, usually perverted by religious ideology. When I talk about moral wisdom, I don't mean doing the right thing. I mean having the intelligence to know what the right thing is.
+
+When people have technological prowess without moral wisdom, we end up with the negative social consequence of having people with the kind of intelligence necessary to engineer proprietary software but lacking the kind of intelligence necessary to see that they're perpetuating an unjust social system. It would be better if those people had never learned to program in the first place because their work will only subjugate people. Most software engineers don't become software engineers to think about ethics, so there are lots of software engineers out there engineering evil software.
+
+In fact, software engineering isn't even the only endeavor that negatively affects society when people have asymmetric intelligence.
+
+## Socially Harmful Combinations of Intelligence
+Some more examples are:
+
+* There are people with the kind of intelligence necessary to fly planes into towers but lacking the kind of intelligence necessary to see past the religious myth motivating them.
+* There are people with the kind of intelligence necessary to build mass surveillance systems but lacking the kind of intelligence necessary to see how incompatible those systems are with a free society.
+* There are people with the kind of intelligence necessary to acquire political power but lacking the kind of intelligence necessary to make good, evidence-based policy decisions.
+* There are people with the kind of intelligence necessary to see the importance of voting but lacking the kind of intelligence necessary to pick a good candidate.
+
+I'm not saying all these instances are only related to intelligence. Sometimes people are just malicious or selfish. But lacking certain kinds of intelligence often has far more to do with apparently malicious behavior than is admitted. It's easier to just say someone is a "bad person" than to consider their intelligence.
+
+For instance, the terrorists that flew the planes into the twin towers on 9/11 were motivated by an ideology[13]. If they had the kind of intelligence related to critical thinking and questioning core beliefs, they may have found out that Islam is a fairytale and never would have carried out the attacks. Believing baseless ideologies is related to critical thinking which is a kind of intelligence. You can blame it on society for never explicitly applying critical thinking to religion, but critical thinking skills are still a form of intelligence regardless of the reason a person may lack them.
+
+# Intelligence is Dynamic
+## Learning
+The last point I want to make is that intelligence is it's highly dynamic. The human brain is capable of creating new patterns of behavior and thought to become better at a skill. Once you learn to ride a bike, that muscle memory stays with you. You don't forget how to do it unless you have some traumatic brain injury.
+
+There are other types of intelligence that do require constant reinforcement. Magnus Carlsen[14], the world's greatest chess player, could not quit chess for 5 years, come back, and still expect to be the world's greatest chess player. Brain research suggests that the brain is a "use it or lose it" organ. You either keep learning or you lose your ability to learn. The brain needs to learn new things to remain plastic and healthy.
+
+The takeaway here is that brains are extremely dynamic systems. If you're missing a certain kind of intelligence, you can learn it. That's one of the most freeing things to learn about yourself. You might never be as intelligent at chess as Magnus Carlsen, but you can improve. You're not confined to things you already know.
+
+## Environmental Factors
+Intelligence is not only dynamic because you can learn. Intelligence and learning are both dynamic because they're affected by other factors such as your mood, the amount of rest you get, your diet and environmental influences. One of the most important factors for learning is an environment where you feel comfortable making mistakes. Being in an environment where your mistakes are mocked kills motivation to learn.
+
+If there's a professor that mocks a student for asking basic questions, that student will eventually become demotivated and stop asking. They'll accept their ignorance on the subject because nobody likes being put down. Put that student in a different classroom where they feel they can be open about their ignorance and won't be judged or mocked and they might excel beyond what others originally thought them capable of.
+
+# Be Open-Minded About Intelligence
+What I want to promote is a sense of open-mindedness about human intelligence. It's very easy to get frustrated when someone doesn't understand something that comes easily to you. That's the natural thing to do. But perhaps you're the wrong person to explain it or the way you explain it is confusing to them. Perhaps it's just not the right time, environment, or circumstances for them to learn. Everyone has different intelligences and different capacities for acquiring intelligences. That's why it's really important to have patience with others. I don't just say that to be politically correct either. To call anyone generally intelligent or unintelligent is almost always an oversimplification of intelligence and human potential.
+
+Intelligence is not binary nor linear nor static. It's a multidimensional, highly dynamic human capacity. We should consider that before putting labels on people. I'll end with a quote from Bill Nye[15], the science guy:
+
+"Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't."
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kim_Peek](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kim_Peek)
+[2: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095953/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095953/)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet)
+[4: https://autism.wikia.org/wiki/Autistic_savant](https://autism.wikia.org/wiki/Autistic_savant)
+[5: http://www.danieltammet.net/numbers.php](http://www.danieltammet.net/numbers.php)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome)
+[7: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677584/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677584/)
+[8: https://www.fsf.org/philosophy](https://www.fsf.org/philosophy)
+[9: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/)
+[10: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/20140407-geneva-tedx-talk-free-software-free-society](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/20140407-geneva-tedx-talk-free-software-free-society)
+[11: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Crusades](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Crusades)
+[12: https://wikiless.org/wiki/September_11_attacks](https://wikiless.org/wiki/September_11_attacks)
+[13: https://thereligionofpeace.com/](https://thereligionofpeace.com/)
+[14: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen)
+[15: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Bill_Nye](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Bill_Nye)
diff --git a/content/post/the-pledge-of-allegiance.md b/content/post/the-pledge-of-allegiance.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..54b8519
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-pledge-of-allegiance.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+title: "The Pledge of Allegiance"
+date: 2020-12-07T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# The Pledge
+Many foreigners would be surprised to find out that we have something in the US called the Pledge of Allegiance. It's recited in public schools across the whole country every day with students standing facing the flag hand over heart. It goes like this:
+
+> "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
+
+To foreigners, the idea of all students standing up every morning chanting this probably sounds creepy. But since Americans are indoctrinated into chanting it starting in primary school, it goes unquestioned. Most American students don't ever think about what the words mean. It's just a ritual. I don't agree with it, but I'm just giving rationale for why students go along with it.
+
+# Legality
+American students aren't legally required to stand for the Pledge. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette[1], the Supreme Court ruled that students can't be compelled to stand for or recite the Pledge as that would constitute compulsory speech, violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. Also students can't be required to justify themselves for not standing. So it is well within your rights not to stand as an American student.
+
+You might still be socially expected to stand depending on where you live. It's likely that most other students stand, so you'll feel uncomfortable the first few times if you choose to sit it out. With time it does get easier to stay sitting though. It's only a few seconds of resisting peer pressure anyway.
+
+# Content of The Pledge
+Let's break down what the pledge actually says. For starters, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...". It seems strange to pledge allegiance to a flag. A flag is a piece of fabric. What does it even mean to pledge your allegiance to a piece of fabric? Try figuring that one out.
+
+The most controversial part of the pledge: "one nation under God". The "under God" part was added in 1954 during the Cold War emphasizing the differences between the US and Soviet Union. Since then, monotheistic religion has been endorsed in public school through the Pledge. What happened to separation of church and state? There have been efforts by secular groups to challenge this.
+
+"indivisible". It's not clear in which sense we are supposed to be indivisible. We are more politically divided than ever.
+
+"with liberty and justice for all". This is a nice thought. But it's just not true. Our nation doesn't have liberty and justice for all. We've certainly made progress, but still roughly half a million Americans not convicted of a crime are behind bars right now. Is that liberty and justice for all? What about the 1% of our population in prison being deprived of basic human dignity as you read this. Where is their justice? The Pledge says liberty and justice for all, not liberty and justice for only model citizens. I understand it's a very high standard to meet, but we shouldn't pretend we're there yet.
+
+Clearly the content of the Pledge has quite a few big problems. The only part I don't take issue with is the part about the US being a republic. Everything else could be improved upon. I would avoid standing for the Pledge on the basis of its content alone. But there's an even better reason not to stand for the Pledge, even if the problems with the content of the Pledge are resolved.
+
+# The Pledge is a Form of Brainwashing
+When do Americans first learn the Pledge? Not as preteens or teenagers. We learn it from the first day of public school when we are too young to understand the meaning. We are too young to question it, to decide if we should be doing it or not. It's not really presented to us as optional, even though legally it is. It's just something we are all commanded to do. Truth be told, most teachers probably aren't aware that it's optional either.
+
+The thought of a room full of students all standing facing the flag hand over heart chanting allegiance without thinking about it evokes a very uncomfortable feeling. It communicates a certain message even if you don't say the actual words. It's saying "You must love this country! You must be a sincere patriot!". Any practice that tries to mandate how you feel is repulsive. It leaves students that don't love their country feeling guilty.
+
+Suppose you don't love your country. Are you a terrible citizen because love isn't what you feel? There's this idea among many Americans that they love their country and others ought to as well. But this doesn't make any sense. Patriotism is involuntary. It can't be forced. Maybe you can be coerced or peer pressured into putting your hand over your heart and looking solemn, but that's not real devotion to your country. It's an empty gesture.
+
+# The Network Effect
+If you're an American student, you accomplish 2 important things by not standing for the morning brainwashing session:
+
+1. You cause other students to think critically. Other students will notice you are not standing. This causes them to reflect on their standing which they previously never thought about. They might ask you why you don't stand. That gives you the opportunity to explain the problems with the content of the Pledge and how it's actually a form of brainwashing.
+2. You make it easier for other students not to stand. If others decide to join you in sitting it out, they won't feel alone in doing so. The more people that sit it out, the more standing students will feel the need to think critically about why they're standing.
+
+# My Story
+I stopped standing for the Pledge in high school (secondary for international readers). As a nonbeliever, I took issue with the phrase "under god".
+
+The most eventful thing to come of my sitting was a teacher confronted me over it before class in front of all the other students. He told me I have to stand and he asked me why I didn't stand. I went to a conservative high school and I didn't want to make an issue since I was surrounded by a class full of students that likely thought the same as he did. If I did say something, students likely would have chimed in to tell me why I was wrong. I didn't want to be shamed by the moral majority, so I just said I didn't want to talk about it.
+
+In retrospect, I should have spoken up about why I didn't want to sit even if I got shamed. It's important for one's voice to be heard, even if the message is unpopular.
+
+At that time, I would have been satisfied with the Pledge if "under god" was removed. Since then, as you can see in this post, I've found many more objections to it besides violating church state separation. Now I wouldn't support any pledge in public schools, regardless of its content especially if it's performed before students reach the age of reason, it isn't critically examined beforehand, and students aren't explicitly told they don't have to participate. Even then, teachers could still be biased against students that refuse to do it. And students that don't might get bullied for it in conservative schools. It goes against the spirit of education, so better to just abolish it entirely.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html)
diff --git a/content/post/the-privacy-implications-of-weak-ai.md b/content/post/the-privacy-implications-of-weak-ai.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ef7b1f7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-privacy-implications-of-weak-ai.md
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+---
+title: "The Privacy Implications of Weak AI"
+date: 2021-11-10T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Introduction
+So a few days ago I started writing this entry titled "Societal Implications of Weak AI". Over the course of the next few days, I found out just how broad of a topic that is. I kept thinking of more topics and subtopics. With weak AI, there's so much to discuss. Eventually the entry ballooned to an unmanageable 30+ minute read. I couldn't figure out how to organize all the topics. So I just decided it would be best to split it up into separate, more digestible entries.
+
+I've chosen to limit the scope of this entry to weak AI only. I'm purposely omitting AGI because it warrants its own discussion. AGI, or general artificial intelligence, is AI with intelligence equal to or far exceeding human intelligence in every way that matters. Weak AI by contrast only handles narrowly-defined, limited tasks. But make no mistake. Just because it's limited doesn't mean it's not dangerous. This entry is all about how weak AI threatens our privacy and what we can do about it.
+
+# Privacy Must Be Protected
+The 'nothing to hide' people don't understand this, but privacy is important for the healthy development of humans and other animals. Being watched all the time is psychologically hazardous. It's backed up by science. Without privacy, there's nowhere to make mistakes without judgement. Letting AI just destroy our privacy in the name of 'progress' is not an option.
+
+# AI is Already a Privacy Disaster
+AI is already destroying our privacy in numerous ways. Just have a look at awful-ai[1], a git repo tracking scary usages of AI. AI can be used to infer criminality from a picture of a person's face. It can recreate a person's face from their voice alone. Everybody already knows about facial recognition which is a privacy disaster. Big retailers use it for tracking. China uses it to surveil muslims. Any time you see 'AI' and 'privacy' in the same sentence, it's always bad news.
+
+# AI Will Become a Worse Privacy Disaster
+AI is already very bad for privacy and getting worse all the time. The most worrisome thing is we have no idea how good weak AI can get at privacy-invading use cases. The only limit in sight is how much personal information can theoretically be derived from input data. Can AI accurately predict the timeframe when someone last had sex based on a 1 minute video of that person? What about how they've been feeling for the past week? It's hard to say what future AI will be able to predict given some data.
+
+You may be publicly sharing information about yourself online now, knowingly or unknowingly, which a future AI Sherlock Holmes (just a metaphor) can use to derive information about you that you don't want anyone to know. Not only that, but it will be able to derive information about you that you don't even know. How much information will future AI be able to derive about me from these journal entries? What will it learn about me from my style of writing, what I write about, when I write about it, etcetera? I don't know. Just imagine what inferences future AI will be able to derive about someone given all the data from intelligence agencies and big tech. Imagine how that could be weaponized.
+
+Future AI may not be able to explain how it reaches its conclusions to us humans. But that won't necessarily matter. As long as its conclusions are accurate, it will be dangerous. If it turns out that future AI Sherlock can derive troves of personal information from very little data, we'll need very strict privacy protections. If it turns out that AI Sherlock can't derive much information, then maybe we can relax protections a little.
+
+# How to Protect Privacy From AI
+## Preventing Data Collection
+No matter how accurate future AI Sherlock is, there are a few things that will probably have to happen to save privacy from AI in the long term:
+
+* Government mass surveillance must end.
+* There must be a law against businesses collecting data on people.
+* Businesses must delete existing identifiable data about people.
+* There must be a law against infrastructure for persistent surveillance of the public. (store surveillance cameras, Ring doorbells)
+* Police use of AI must be community-controlled.
+* People must use free software[2]. Non-free software often contains surveillance features.
+* People must stop using services as software substitutes (SaaSS)[3]. They're prone to surveillance.
+* People must use encrypted, metadata-resistant communications protocols. Preferably mixnets that prevent traffic analysis against global adversaries. See Nym.[4]
+* There must be a law against public sector jobs using non-free software, SaaSS, and insecure communications protocols.
+* Workplaces must stop requiring people to use non-free software, SaaSS, and insecure communications protocols.
+* There must be a law requiring businesses to accept anonymous forms of payment.
+* There must be a way to perform transactions online privately.
+* There must be a law against markets for personal data, the same way there are laws against markets for human organs.
+* Smartphone location tracking must end.
+* We must educate people about the importance of privacy and create political pressure to protect it.
+* <more items here...>
+
+If you notice, almost all of the above points are related to preventing data collection and not preventing AI use. AI is just software. To stop people using it would require extremely draconian measures that might undermine privacy anyways. I'm not saying draconian measures protect us from AI will never be justifiable. I'm just saying why resort to that when there are solutions that aren't draconian and will actually allow us to preserve our rights?
+
+The best way to stop privacy-invading AI is to stop the data collection. AI needs data to make predictions about people. Without data, AI can't make predictions. We should still allow mass data collection with AI to predict things like the weather. That doesn't violate anyone's privacy. The violation happens when there's collection of personally identifiable data about people, or collection of data which AI can later use to deduce personally identifiable information about people. That is what we have to prevent.
+
+## Problem Areas
+There is cause for concern about such strong privacy laws though. For instance there are some highly desirable technologies which inherently require persistent surveillance of public areas, something I insisted we must not have.
+
+### Self-Driving Cars
+How can you have self-driving cars if it's illegal to conduct persistent surveillance of the public? You can't. The cars must have external sensors and cameras in order to work. We could just not have them, but self-driving cars will save millions of lives. We don't want to block technological development that benefits humanity.
+
+For those cases, we need strict, legally enforceable data collection and data protection standards that businesses must adhere to and perhaps audits to ensure the standards are being followed. If your company builds technology which has the hardware cability to conduct persistent surveillance of the public, then there should be guidelines it has to follow:
+
+* The technology must be built with free hardware and run free software exclusively.
+* The technology must not collect more data than necessary to achieve its ends.
+* The technology must securely delete said data after it's no longer needed.
+* The technology must securely encrypt all transmitted data.
+* <more items here...>
+
+Of course the guidelines will be technology-specific and they won't be perfect. There will still be data leaks and hacks. But we  have to collectively agree on certain trade-offs. There are going to be some benefits of AI we just can't have unless everybody agrees to sacrifice some level of privacy. We're not going to be able to have self-driving cars and all the benefits they come with unless we allow cars to drive around with cameras and sensors capturing everything going on around them.
+
+### Online AI Matchmaking
+For another example, imagine an online AI matchmaking service which finds your perfect match. Suppose it's more successful than other existing matchmaking services, by any metric. Sounds great right? But there's a catch. The reason it achieves such great results is because it creates huge dossiers on its users to feed into the AI matchmaking algorithm.
+
+You might be thinking "Well if you don't want your privacy invaded, just don't sign up." Ah but it's not so simple. None of us live in a privacy vaccuum. Every time you give up data about yourself, you risk giving up data about others even if you never explicitly offer data about them. As I already discussed, AI can deduce information about other people you're close to based on things it knows about you. Using privacy-invading services inevitably leaks some data about nonconsenting non-users.
+
+It still makes sense to mitigate the privacy damage caused by AI matchmaking using the same sort of regulations I proposed for self-driving cars. Deciding not to use the service is an individual decision. But on a societal level, we have to decide whether it's okay for such a service to exist in the first place in an environment where AI Sherlock could use the data to derive personal information about nonconsenting non-users.
+
+### Other Technologies
+The examples of self-driving cars and AI matchmaking were pretty mild in terms of their privacy invasiveness. As more jobs become automated, privacy trade-offs will happen all over the place. As we're surrounded by AI-driven robots replacing our jobs, they'll collect more and more data on us. These AI robots will have to be extremely carefully designed and regulated so that they collect minimal data about people and securely delete it as soon as it's no longer needed.
+
+If many useful services provided by AI simply cannot exist without collecting personal data on users, then we might end up with a 2-tier society. There will be those who sacrifice their privacy to reap the huge benefits of AI technology. Then there will be those who don't consent to giving up their privacy who will end up comparatively crippled. Dividing society in this way would be a very bad thing.
+
+## Cryptography
+But maybe we can avoid making trade-offs. One reason to stay hopeful I haven't mentioned yet is how cryptography could protect privacy from AI. With advances in homomorphic encryption[5], differential privacy[6], zero-knowledge proofs[7], and other cryptographic tools, we might can have our AI/privacy cake and eat it too. Improvements in homomorphic encryption efficiency in particular could enable us to perform all computations encrypted, including training neural networks on encrypted data.[8] This would be great news for privacy. Since efficient homomorphic encryption would allow businesses to perform arbitrary computations on encrypted data, no business offering an internet service would have any excuse for collecting or storing plaintext user data.
+
+We could also regulate businesses running AI-driven services so they're legally required to operate it collecting as minimal user data as possible. For instance, if we figured out how to use homomorphic encryption for the hypothetical AI matchmaking business without collecting plaintext data about users, it would then be legally required of all AI matchmaking businesses providing worse or equivalent service to provide that same level of privacy to users.
+
+With that law in place, we could constantly step up privacy protections against AI and also online services that don't use AI as well. We could also avoid a 2-tier society of those benefitting from AI and those that aren't. Maybe cryptography can save us from being forced to pick and choose.
+
+# Summary
+In summary, AI is a danger to privacy. It's getting more dangerous. To protect our privacy, we need to stop governments and businesses from collecting data about us and get them to purge data they already have. Stronger laws and regulations than currently exist anywhere in the world will need to be passed to protect user privacy in a meaningful way. If we're fortunate, advances in cryptography, particularly homomorphic encryption, could allow us to reap the benefits of AI without the privacy invasion.
+
+It's too early to say how the future of privacy will play out. Anyone that claims to know is either full of themselves or lying. There are just too many unknowns. As I said earlier, we don't know how much predictive power future AI will have or how fast it will develop. We don't know which privacy laws will be rolled out or when. We don't know if or when cryptographic tools will become available that can alleviate some of the privacy concerns. We don't know how public attitudes towards privacy will adapt over time. So it's all up in the air for now.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Awful AI](https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai)
+[2: Free Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)
+[3: Service as a Software Substitute](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html)
+[4: Nym](https://nymtech.net/)
+[5: Homomorphic Encryption](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption)
+[6: Differential Privacy](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Differential_privacy)
+[7: Zero-Knowledge Proof](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof)
+[8: Towards Deep Neural Network Training on Encrypted Data](https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_CVPRW_2019/papers/CV-COPS/Nandakumar_Towards_Deep_Neural_Network_Training_on_Encrypted_Data_CVPRW_2019_paper.pdf)
diff --git a/content/post/the-privacy-paradox.md b/content/post/the-privacy-paradox.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..87525a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-privacy-paradox.md
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+title: "The Privacy Paradox"
+date: 2020-12-28T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+After the Snowden revelations of 2013[1], we learned that the NSA's global internet surveillance program XKeyscore[2] was flagging people that read...Linux Magazine[3]. That's right. The NSA would place you on a special high-priority surveillance list for taking an interest in one of the only operating systems that isn't known to have a backdoor[4]. But it didn't end there.
+
+You can see in the XKeyscore rules[5] people that searched for Tor[6] and Tails OS[7] software were being targeted. These are programs written for the express purpose of anonymity and avoiding the watchful eye of Big Brother.
+
+There seems to be a common theme here. Big Brother programs automatically targeted people that took steps to avoid surveillance. It's a fair bet to make that people that use privacy tools are still targeted more than those who don't. There's one very good reason to suspect this: Big Brother doesn't need to take a special interest in those that don't avoid mass surveillance because mass surveillance is sufficient to build a full portrait of their lives anyway. It's logical that Big Brother would only need to pay special attention to those avoiding mass surveillance since their privacy is harder to violate.
+
+# The Paradox
+Thus we end up with a paradox: The more you avoid mass surveillance, the more interesting you become to Big Brother. This increases the likelihood that you'll end up on one of their "extra surveillance" lists and that more targeted methods will be used on you. The less you avoid mass surveillance, the less interesting you become to Big Brother. All else being equal, this decreases the likelihood that you'll get special attention. Blending in with the surveilled masses might give you more anonymity and privacy, in practice. In other words, allowing yourself to be mass surveilled might act as a kind of protection against targeted surveillance.
+
+If you pay for everything in cash[8] where cash payments are uncommon, if you use internet services[9] registered outside of the Five Eyes[10], if you use Tor and VPNs for accessing the internet, if you use free as in freedom[11] software and encrypted communication apps, if you avoid social media[12], if you drive a privacy-friendly vehicle[13] when you can afford a newer car, you're going to attract attention to yourself. One of these things on its own isn't a red flag, but combined together, there's really only one thing you can be doing: avoiding mass surveillance. One doesn't avoid mass surveillance in today's world by accident unless you're amish or living in a poor country.
+
+Knowing this, what ought you to do about it? Should you try to blend in or should you avoid mass surveillance and just not care how many watchlists you end up on?
+
+# What to Do About It
+## Short Answer
+Trying to blend in with the surveilled populace is like giving a thief your money so they can't steal it. If you really want to fight mass surveillance, you should take as many steps to avoid mass surveillance as you're willing to take and don't worry about being targeted. If enough people do this, it will raise the bar on privacy[14] so that only the more expensive targeted surveillance tools will work. Then everyone will collectively have more privacy.
+
+## Long Answer
+If you or someone you know is doing something illegal and you don't want Big Brother's attention, especially since Big Brother has been known to do nasty things such as assisting with evidence laundering[15], you might think it's a good idea to avoid mass surveillance only when conducting illegal activities to avoid drawing too much attention to yourself. This strategy is ill-advised for at least two reasons:
+
+### Reason #1
+Allowing yourself to be mass surveilled on purpose some of the time is the reason the bar on privacy remains low. If all you care about is not drawing attention to yourself and your illegal activities, then fine. But if you care about wider society, then you should raise the bar on privacy by avoiding mass surveillance at all times, not only when engaging in illegal activities.
+
+### Reason #2
+You contribute to the stereotype that a desire for privacy indicates nefarious activity. It empowers the surveillance state in the current iteration of the crypto wars[16] because Big Brother can say that anonymity networks are mainly used for criminal purposes. If it can be shown for instance that 90% of Tor traffic is used for legal activities then it's (theoretically) much harder for the government to make the case that it should be censored because of drug dealers, money launderers, pedophiles and terrorists.
+
+The only long-term winning strategy for all society is to avoid mass surveillance as much as possible with the hope that others will follow suit. This is true whether you're a law-abiding citizen or a criminal mastermind.  To drive this point home, I'll end with a quote by Edward Snowden[17] from his interview with John Oliver on Last Week Tonight:
+
+> "You shouldn’t change your behavior because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing. If we sacrifice our values because we’re afraid, we don’t care about those values very much."
+
+This quote was taken from the context of taking dick pics, but it can be equally applied here: Don't accept mass surveillance as reality just because the government might target you for it.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present))
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/XKeyscore](https://wikiless.org/wiki/XKeyscore)
+[3: https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance](https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing))
+[5: https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt](https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt)
+[6: https://www.torproject.org/](https://www.torproject.org/)
+[7: https://tails.boum.org/](https://tails.boum.org/)
+[8: /2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance](../../../../2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance/)
+[9: /2020/10/29/using-email](../../../../2020/10/29/using-email/)
+[10: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Five_Eyes](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Five_Eyes)
+[11: /2020/10/20/use-free-software](../../../../2020/10/20/use-free-software/)
+[12: /2020/12/17/atom-and-rss](../../../../2020/12/17/atom-and-rss/)
+[13: /2020/12/16/avoiding-automobile-surveillance](../../../../2020/12/16/avoiding-automobile-surveillance/)
+[14: /2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy](../../../../2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy/)
+[15: /2020/12/04/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement](../../../../2020/12/04/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement/)
+[16: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars)
+[17: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden)
diff --git a/content/post/the-self.md b/content/post/the-self.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..de0e0f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-self.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "The Self"
+date: 2020-05-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Language
+Starting at a young age, we pick up language, mainly from our parents. We are very much conditioned to think in certain ways by the language we speak. This is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis[1]. What I want to talk about is similar to Sapir-Whorf. It isn't about how particular languages affect one's worldview, but about how any language can create a false image of the world. Language is a tool for getting information from one mind to another. But it's more than that. It is a tool for thinking. One thing that should be taught more in English classes is that writing is useful for crystallizing and refining thoughts, not just communicating them.
+
+The problem with any spoken language is that in order to be useful, it has to create abstractions. These abstractions are fuzzy, inexact ways of talking about things. Mathematical language is not fuzzy and imprecise like spoken language is. Mathematical language is symbolic and rigorous. What is written is unambiguous. But this fuzziness of concept is a necessary evil, otherwise natural language would be inefficient and slow and still inexact. The problem isn't language itself. It comes when we treat language as reality, when we forget we are dealing with these inexact fuzzy abstractions which are nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, etc. A lot of the words in spoken language are fuzzy.
+
+This is something that I have always found intuitive but is an easy mistake to make in philosophy. I would argue that a rather large fraction of academic papers about philosophy aren't actually creating an interesting argument or bringing any substance to the table. Academics are simply bickering about how words should be used without even realizing it. For example, look at the Ship of Theseus[2]. The essential question it poses is this: "Is an object the same object if all its component parts are replaced over time?". I agree with Noam Chomsky that this is a cognitive issue manufactured by humans because we get really bent out of shape if we don't know what to label something. We have to have a label. So what we do we call something if all its parts are replaced? Do we call it something else or do we call it the same thing? Now the problem becomes more clear. It's a question about language.
+
+The right question is "If an object's parts are replaced, should we still call it the same object?". We could make a pros and cons list of calling it the same object versus giving it a different name and decide what makes more sense. One might think I'm being being pedantic about this and philosophers understand the real question is about what we call the object. My own personal experience has shown that this is not true. People often do not understand that they're arguing about what to call something, and it's not any deeper than that. This is called Mistaking the Map for the Territory[3].
+
+But we have also created another problem. What is an object? Let's take a car for example. Let's say we haven't replaced any parts. Where does the car stop and the car's environment begin? Is the air inside the car also the car? What if the car is in orbit around the earth and it has no air, is the space inside the car still the car, or is it just empty space? This questioning is ridiculous in one sense because when I say the word "car", every English speaker intuitively knows what the word "car" means. For all practical usages of the word "car" we will never have to worry about bizarre philosophical quandries about the identity of the car (especially since there's no "Car of Theseus"). We all just sort of know what other people talk about when they talk about a "car".
+
+# Opposites
+Everything implies its opposite or negation. I don't mean this in a logical sense. I mean it as a matter of language. The word "black" implies that there are words for other colors. It implies "not black" colors because otherwise we wouldn't need the word black. Left implies right. Up implies down. Forward implies backward. Here implies there. Car implies "not car" or environment for a better term. Just by using the word "car" we imply that there exists (in language, not literally exists in space) an environment which at least is defined as not being the car. The car is not its environment. This can be applied to any object. It also applies to adjectives and other features of language. Colorful implies colorless. Dumb implies smart. Yin-yang. It words for verbs as well. Running implies walking or crawling or not running. A pair of opposites that depend on one another. They cannot exist (conceptually) separately. So if they can't exist separately, why call them opposites?
+
+It's possible to see things from another point of view. What if instead of treating what we call a "car" as a separate idea from the environment of the car, we treat the car and the environment as one whole system. It could be called the "car-environment". We are not accustomed to thinking of objects in these terms, primarily because we are conditioned to think using language that pretends that our distinction of what is a car and what is its environment is a real distinction made by the universe itself, not a somewhat arbitrary distinction as a product of evolved language. This is why we forget that voice in our head that we hear when reading this sentence is not us. So what about the word I? Where is the self that answers to the word "I", that is yourself?
+
+# The Self
+As a matter of language, the word "self" implies the word "other". Other than self. Not self. Are you you're brain? Where do the boundaries of "you" begin and end exactly? Where do "I" go when I sleep? The right question to ask is "What definition should the word I have?". But we must remember that "I" is just a word, a concept. The concept of "I" is no more you than the concept of a "car" is an actual car. No matter how far you zoom in to a continuous function, you won't see the discrete points that make it up. Eventually you get the idea of continuity. The self is similar. The more you zoom in to what you are calling "I", the less it makes sense to separate "I" from the rest of the cosmos. You are continuous with everything that is. You are one with the unfolding process that is this cosmos. You are not physically separate from it, despite the pesky word "I" that would have you think otherwise.
+
+Meditation is a practice that can help you experience this oneness, but it takes practice. Specifically, mindfulness meditation is a good place to start. Instead of "zooming in", I often use the phrase "getting behind oneself". For instance, you are reading this sentence and suddenly a thought pops into your head "What should I make for dinner tonight?". Let's say the thought pops up exactly like that, in a bit of language. And then it passes and you keep reading. Where did that thought come from and where did it go? Did you generate that thought or did it just pop up? If you pay close enough attention, you can see how thoughts, moods, and sensations come and go without you "doing" anything. One might call this level one of getting behind yourself. When you have an angry thought, you are no longer entranced by it. You are the self that notices the angry thought or the physiological change that comes with resurrecting that thought. You are no longer your thoughts. You are behind them, listening as a passive observer as if they are someone else's thoughts.
+
+Getting behind yourself a second time could mean that you notice the observer of your thoughts. To recap, level one is observing your thoughts and sensations. You are not behind your eyes, in your head as a matter of experience. You are the self that notices the feeling of having a head, the feeling of being behind your eyes, but you are not in your head behind your eyes. You are the noticer. Level two means that you notice the self that notices the feeling of having a head. What the ultimate goal here is, is trying to find the self that is doing the searching. You are trying to pay attention to your attention itself. I can call this level one and level two for clarity, but I think it's more of a continuous spectrum of awareness without clearly defined "levels".
+
+Think about a dog chasing its own tail. Puppies might not realize that what they're chasing is their own tail. But once they catch it and bite down, they know. Perhaps it's better explained as a game of hide and go seek. You forget who you really are as you grow up. Others give you a name and assign adjectives to you as if that's who you really are. You are told you are John, the clever thirty year old quirky accomplished artist and you better not think you're anything else. To use the words of Alan Watts, you are an isolated ego inside a "bag of skin". Life is like playing a game of hide and go seek where you are both the one hiding and the one seeking. And meditation is a technique for looking in the mirror and finding out the hider and seeker are the same person. Except the seeker goes by the name of "I" and the one hiding goes by the name of "the environment". And when I say "the environment", I don't mean just the physical environment. I mean the thoughts inside your head including the feeling of having a head.
+
+## Conceptual Understanding of Self Versus Experience
+If you get what I'm saying about the self so far, that's great. You have a conceptual understanding of it. But to only have a conceptual understanding is to miss the point. It's like if a person were blind from birth. They can learn every fact there is to know about color. They can learn the cultural significance. For example, in American culture, blue means calmness and security. Black means darkness. Purple represents mystery. The blind person can learn the wavelengths that produce every color. They can know what colors go well together and what art styles are used with what color. But they have never actually seen color. So we would still say they lack perhaps the most important thing there is to know about color. The experience. The experience of color can't be replaced by knowing facts about it.
+
+An understanding of the self is precisely the same. You might understand everything you've read in this post so far, but you may have never looked within. This makes you like the blind man who knows all the facts about color, but has never seen it. Experiencing the loss of one's ego can be described in words, but you'll never get across in words the most important aspect, the experience, of the disillusionment one's ego. It's much richer to be the one that has seen color, experienced it, yet knows nothing about it than to be the blind person that knows every color fact. There are yogis and zen masters that are expert meditators but can't articulate their experience outside of religious dogma. I think fewer are those that understand the self but don't have some experience of it, because often accidental life experiences of self create the interest.
+
+There is a growing interest in the west around meditation and self which has been understood in the east for over two and a half thousand years. This shows that it's not a matter of knowing more facts. We have gained immense knowledge as a species over the past two and a half thousand years, but for most of us westerners we still have no clue about the self despite our technological advancement. It's just a matter of looking within and regular practice meditating. Turns out there are some places more thinking can't get you and the experience of oneness or "inner peace" is one of them. This I think is the hardest thing for a western person to digest because in almost every other area of human endeavor we can make progress by thinking. In meditation, the goal is to be thought-less, or at least aware of your thoughts. Awareness is a completely different mode than most of us westerners are used to using our brains. That's another reason some struggle to wrap their mind around it. I can talk to some western people about the self and awareness and it's as if they have no inner life whatsoever and don't understand what I'm talking about.
+
+# Conclusion
+If you take away anything from this post, understand that knowing facts about self versus experiencing it are orthogonal. If you want to really experience oneness with reality and get with your self, one way to do it is repeated meditation practice. There is no substitute. If you have any interest, just try it. Try different forms of meditation even for five or ten minutes, but start with mindfulness if you're a beginner. And keep practicing even if you don't notice anything the first few times. You really can't fail because it's like dancing. There is no end goal. You just do it for the sake of it. The most important thing is that you are doing it. Meditation doesn't guarantee a profound experience, but I'd be surpised if I met someone who meditated properly for one week, an hour per day and found nothing of value.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)
+[3: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory)
diff --git a/content/post/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor.md b/content/post/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b8f8e5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+title: "The Tipping Point - Rejecting Windows, Zoom, Lockdown Browser, and the Lockdown Monitor"
+date: 2020-03-30T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Background
+This semester I took networking at SIUe[1]. Networking is a senior level CS course. I'll call the professor, "Professor X" to preserve anonymity.
+
+# Story
+## Windows
+The first software freedom issue I had in this class had to do with the Wiresharks labs. Wireshark[2] is free software that can be used to capture and analyse network traffic. So there was no issue with Wireshark. Actually, the issue was with the assignment instructions. The instructions were written so that some tasks had to be performed outside of Wireshark and screenshotted. If I remember correctly Professor X said he did not make any changes to the assignment before giving us the assignment. The assignments were actually obtained from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst[3]. The DHCP Wireshark lab contained instructions that only work on Windows.
+
+It wouldn't have been hard for me to find the equivalent commands on GNU/Linux, but by this point I realized that me doing all the legwork to get things working on GNU/Linux ultimately doesn't do much good. It gets me by but it doesn't help other students or have any effect moving coursework toward using free software. So instead, I decided I wasn't going to do the extra work myself, and instead included a note in my completed assigment submission stating that I don't own a Windows machine and wouldn't use it. So I downloaded the Wireshark trace from the University of Massachusetts (the assignment said we could do this if we couldn't get Wireshark to capture). I imported it into Wireshark and used it for the duration of the assignment.
+
+Back in class after the assignment was graded, Professor X announced that students would no longer be permitted to download the trace from the University of Massachusetts. It would have to be captured manually by following the Windows-only instructions. This swiftly closed the loophole I used to bypass using Windows. Therefore, it is no longer possible to take networking with Professor X without using Windows unless you want to do extra work. And by the way, this is one of, if not the most ardent GNU/Linux professors at SIUe based on my experience. He said in class that he uses Arch[4] and is comfortable doing things in the terminal. The point I'm trying to get across is that if you want to only use free software, do not study at SIUe. It is not a free software friendly university and you will struggle trying to work around that.
+
+## Zoom
+After the corona virus lockdown was declared in Illinois and the university shut down all classes on campus, the lectures needed a way to continue. Professor X went for Zoom[5]. Zoom is proprietary crapware. You can download Zoom on your computer or use it through the browser which probably requires proprietary Javascript and camera and microphone access. I emailed Professor X if there was another way I could watch the lectures. To accomodate me, he began recording the meetings and emailing them to everyone. However, he said he was still taking attendance with Zoom unfortunately. So I found out it's possible to use SIP[6]. I attempted to set up an SIP account so I could use Zoom, but then I quickly gave up on that and decided on just using the recordings. I felt that I shouldn't have to do extra legwork to avoid using proprietary software. If professors are going to suggest proprietary software to students, which they shouldn't, then they should at least offer a free software alternative that works equally well. Of course, Zoom in the long run is turning out to be a disaster as proprietary software often does.
+
+I want to elaborate a bit on how Zoom is turning out to be a disaster. Zoom is a privacy nightmare. It actually has an attention tracking feature documented in the knowledge base[7] which creepily allowed hosts of a Zoom meeting to track if the participants were paying attention or not. The CEO addressed multiple issues[8]. One issue was uninvited participants joining and crashing conferences. Another was that the iOS client contained the Facebook SDK. Facebook is a surveillance monster, so of course that was an absolute privacy disaster and it had to be removed. Zoom video and audio doesn't even have end-to-end encryption according to this article[9]. Hackers quickly found a way to exploit Zoom to expose Windows passwords and showed a screenshot of it on Twitter[10]. Some Zoom calls may have been routed through China, where geofencing should have prevented this. The CEO didn't say how many users could have been effected[11]. China does not enforce laws about personal data privacy so who knows if the calls got collected, stored, or analyzed.
+
+So now some universities are rushing over to Microsoft Teams, which will also be a privacy and security disaster forced upon students yet again. They are just going from one proprietary privacy disaster to the next when the best solution is to just use free software. Teams is proprietary and the Teams website requires proprietary Javascript and perhaps worse a Microsoft account where you must agree to their insane terms of service. So at this point you may be wondering, what free software is out there that would be reasonable for schools to use that would be better? Jitsi[12] seems like a very viable alternative. It allows video calling, voice calling, meetings between an unlimited number of participants, and no sign up or account required. I'm not sure about the encryption and data privacy it has, but at least you know it doesn't come with the Facebook SDK. Besides, there is also Matrix[13] which is cross-platform and has multiple clients. There are free software options available that universities should be looking into rather than all jumping onboard the Zoom train, then jumping onto the Teams train after Zoom derailed.
+
+## Lockdown Browser & Monitor
+Due to corona virus, the final exam was going to have to change also. Obviously, us students couldn't take the exam in person and this opened up doors to potential cheating. I found out we were going to have to use the intrusive proprietary Windows or Mac only garbage that is the Respondus Lockdown Browser[14]. So I contacted Professor X over email to find out if there was an alternate way to take the exam. For example, being given access to the final exam and then given a certain time window to finish and upload it. He told me this wouldn't be possible. The browser apparently detects and does not allow usage through a VM based on the Respondus knowledgebase. Since I don't own any Windows machines and I'm required lawfully and ethically to social distance myself, the only way I know I can complete the exam without issues is by partitioning my hard drive and installing the latest Windows, just for this one exam that lasts less than two hours.
+
+Furthermore, even though I could do all that, I'm not willing to. That would be using Windows and the Lockdown browser and implicitly affirming that forcing proprietary software on students is okay. Professor X emailed me a second time and informed me that it wasn't really his choice to use Respondus Lockdown browser, that "the university" had decided on it. Whether that means there was some vote within the faculty of the computer science department or the dictate was simply handed down university-wide I don't know. I'm not very interested in the beaurocracy. He told me that "We are under extraordinary circumstances that no one foresaw 3 weeks ago. We've all had to make changes and exceptions to ways we work... I highly encourage you to also be sympathetic to the situation and consider making exceptions". After that he offered to help me repartition my machine to install Windows and mentioned that the university offers free legal Windows 10 licenses available to students. So I took the next step and contacted the chair of the CS department at SIUe. He reaffirmed what Professor X had already said and was not willing to have Professor X make an exception.
+
+So I took Professor X's advice and was sympathetic and considered making an exception. And then after two seconds of thought I decided that dropping the class and refusing to use it was as sympathetic as I can get to proprietary software. I wasn't going to repartition my computer to install the proprietary backdoored malware operating system Windows that could rootkit my machine so that I could install a proprietary malware browser and "monitor" that purposely spies on and cripples the operating system. And then I realized it's probable that some of my other classes would require Respondus lockdown software as well this semester for the final exam and I couldn't in good conscience use it. Also, it's likely that due to COVID-19 my summer classes would also require using it. Even if those classes didn't require that proprietary software, it became clear to me that there were certainly going to be obstacles I simply couldn't get over in the future without switching professors, retaking classes, and constantly doing extra work without much benefit or change to the software the university was using. All of that could also prolong my graduation by a year, two years, or who knows how long racking up student debt. I had already came so far as I was two semesters away from graduating after this one. However, if I dropped out of SIUe, I would free up enough time to build my portfolio, improve my programming skills, network with free software organizations and potentially get some real-world experience. So, I dropped out. It was at great personal cost to myself, but it was the only ethical option left.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.siue.edu](https://www.siue.edu)
+[2: https://www.wireshark.org/](https://www.wireshark.org/)
+[3: https://gaia.cs.umass.edu/kurose_ross/wireshark.htm](https://gaia.cs.umass.edu/kurose_ross/wireshark.htm)
+[4: https://www.archlinux.org/](https://www.archlinux.org/)
+[5: https://zoom.us/](https://zoom.us/)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Protocol](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Protocol)
+[7: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115000538083-Attendee-attention-tracking](https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115000538083-Attendee-attention-tracking)
+[8: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/)
+[9: https://theintercept.com/2020/03/31/zoom-meeting-encryption/](https://theintercept.com/2020/03/31/zoom-meeting-encryption/)
+[10: https://twitter.com/hackerfantastic/status/1245133371262619654](https://twitter.com/hackerfantastic/status/1245133371262619654)
+[11: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4)
+[12: https://jitsi.org/jitsi-meet/](https://jitsi.org/jitsi-meet/)
+[13: https://matrix.org/](https://matrix.org/)
+[14: https://web.respondus.com/](https://web.respondus.com/)
diff --git a/content/post/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility.md b/content/post/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d1ce568
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+title: "The Victim Mentality Versus Individual Responsibility"
+date: 2020-04-10T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+This is a compare and contrast of two seemingly opposing ideas. What I hope to show is that actually they are just two ways of talking about the same thing. I hope to find some common ground between left and right ideology. One is often referred to as "the victim mentality" and the other is what I call "individual responsiblity fetishism".
+
+# The Victim Mentality
+In the United States, the extreme political left is seen as propping up this mindset. The victim mentality is when a person has the mentality that they are not "responsible" for anything that is happening or has happened to them. Said person feels completely and utterly a victim of circumstance. This can either take the form of collective victimhood or individual victimhood. In the individual case, a person may feel that they cannot succeed because some circumstance in their life prevents success. For example, a person may feel that they were not adequately educated in their poor high school and therefore that is preventing them from succeeding in college due to the catching up they have to do. So it is the "fault" of their high school or the teachers that taught at their high school. Their high school teachers may give the explanation that they don't get paid enough and so their motivation is low, or they have so much else going on in life that they couldn't properly focus on teaching, or that they were also educated poorly and their culture perpetuated bad memes which ultimately made them become a failure at their job. There are several problems with the idea of blame. As Jordan Peterson has pointed out, one problem with this mentality is that it invites an infinite regress. Everyone can blame their parents for how they are. And parents can blame grandparents and so on all the way back to Adam and Eve. I use "Adam and Eve" metaphorically. Of course Adam and Eve never actually existed and we know this because we know darwinian evolution occurred. But the point is that a regression of causes can be traced back to the very beginning, where we find whatever or whoever is ultimately responsible for all the evil mess in the world.
+
+Besides the infinite temporal regression of blaming that can happen leaving no one and nothing ultimately responsible, there is also the possibility of the circularity of blame which also leaves no one ultimately responsible. Imagine a group of ten employees sitting at a round table meeting. The boss asks who is responsible for some financial mishap and everyone points to the person on their left, similar to how computer processes can enter a circular deadlock. Each process can blame the process it's waiting on for being stuck, but the processes are waiting in a circular fashion preventing progress from being made. I like to see these two different scenarios of regression and circularity as part of "the blame game", related to "playing the victim" or "the victim card". It's not my fault, it's someone else's. I'm the victim here. I don't "do" anything. Things simply "happen" to me.
+
+With collective victimhood, entire groups of people feel marginalized, mistreated, underrepresented, or discriminated against. Economic and social inequality and treatment of minorities are a focus of the left. Leftists are concerned about groups of people that are disadvantaged relative to others groups of people. Leftists might be apt to say that marginalized groups are not responsible for what happens to them. For example, black people were historically barred from voting. Black schools weren't given the same resources as white schools. Segregation in public places instilled the idea that black and white people were meant to be separate and that black people were, rightly, second class citizens. It was pointed out that one problem with collective victimhood taken to the extreme is that it takes away all "agency" from the marginalized group. If a group is victimized, they have no responsiblity for where they are at and no agency to direct where they want to go. They are powerless. So one criticism of collective victimhood is that seeing yourself as a victim or in a group of victims is disempowering. It basically is saying that you can't "direct your own destiny". Your life is simply completely subject to "fate" as is everyone in your marginalized group. It is up to people not in the marginalized group, those with the agency, to fix things. Talking about agency starts to get into the idea of free will. Free will is an incoherent concept. I recommend Sam Harris' book The Illusion of Free Will[1] on the subject, although I plan on dedicating an entirely separate post to it.
+
+Ultimately, what we have to realize is that the victim mentality is a way of talking about events. To paint a clearer picture of what's going on, I want to iterate through a few things. First, having a victim mentality can be disempowering to the person or group that has it. No doubt about that. It can create a feeling of helplessness, a sense of not having agency and control over your own life. I think that agency and control are complex subjects and loaded words, but I'm just talking about how the victim mentality can make people feel. It can create a feeling that the world or other people owe you something. It can be very devastating I think to the sense of control over your own life. If taken to the extreme, it can get you stuck in a place in life you don't like, and you can keep yourself there for a long time by telling yourself there's nothing you can do to improve your circumstances. And I do think this is a real thought pattern that drives self-pity and keeps people stuck in a bad situation. This is my primary concern with the victim mentality way of talking to yourself about things. And it is just a way of talking to yourself. That's the most important thing to keep in mind, because blame is really an abstraction made up by people to figure out who we need to help or punish. You might say the abstraction of blame comes in useful sometimes to figure out who is responsible for some mistake so that person can be singled out and given whatever treatment they need so that the mistake doesn't reoccur. But oftentimes, time is wasted figuring out who to blame. The desire to place blame can become so strong that you make up a sort of blame calculus and when all the tabulations are over, you realize the whole exercise was pointless. Because after the "blame units" have been tabulated and you know who to assign them to, the tabulation is functionally useless because despite the fact you know who to blame and how much, you did nothing with the tabulation. In that case, the abstraction of blame can become not so useful. A lot of time can be wasted playing the blame game to no useful end. That's also something I see happen in the real world all the time.
+
+# Individual Responsibility Fetishism
+This is the opposite side of the same coin propped up by extreme right. It involves talking to yourself as if you are a demigod. That is to say, you are directly personally responsible for everything in your life. It is just yet another way of talking to yourself, nothing more. The idea is, take "responsibility" for as much as you find it coherent to take responsibility for. Obviously, the weather affects your life. But, I don't think even the most extreme right wing "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" personality would argue that you are responsible for the weather. Although they might argue that you are responsible for how the weather makes you feel or how you are affected by the rain because you could bring an umbrella. When people talk to themselves in this way, they don't tend to make themselves responsible for every single event that happens, just as much as it makes sense to. Interestingly, this individual responsibility fetishism occasionally shadows other people's responsibility. I've seen this mindset among members of the military. It is my fault, not the person under my supervision. It's the opposite of the victim mentality. I'm at "fault" for the failure of anyone I'm in charge of. It's my failure, not theirs. I obviously failed to adequately train them, so blame me, not them for their failure to perform. In other words, bear the greatest burden you can bear and no more than that.
+
+I find that many people who have this mindset and believe it firmly are competent and successful people and it's not hard to see why this kind of mindset would correlate with success. Talking to yourself this way can be very useful. I'm responsible for my own happiness. I'm not the victim. I am oppressed by my genes, childhood, past bullying, bad habits, or whatever, but it is my responsibility now to overcome those things. I "do" almost everything. Things don't "happen to me". I take ownership over what happens in my life because the results of my life are my own doing. Motivational videos often talk to people this way. It doesn't matter if there is any truth to it or if the abstraction of individual responsiblity makes sense given the lack of free will. For people with this mentality, they just recognize it's a useful way to talk to themselves inside their head because it has helped them succeed personally.
+
+One issue with this abstraction of individual responsibility and this mindset is that it can be hard to draw a line between what you do and what happens to you. As a concrete example, you feel that you are reading this sentence right now. But are you beating your heart? The fact that the phrase "I beat my heart" doesn't exist in English indicates that people feel the beating of their heart isn't something they do. It is something that happens on its own. We say, "my heart beats". With breathing, you can say to someone "you are now manually breathing" and they will become aware of their breath. They will go from feeling as if breathing is just happening, to feeling that they are now consciously doing the breathing. This is why the breath is often used as an object of meditation. You can feel as if you are doing it or as if it is happening all on its own. Back to individual responsibility. Where should one draw this distinction between what you do and what happens to you? You have billions of cells in your body that operate, but you don't feel like you are doing that. That is something that is happening. Well, if you're going to take the attitude that you're responsible in your life, you better be able to say what the difference is between what happens to you and what you are doing. And there seems to be no hard and fast rule to do that.
+
+Individual responsibility in the popular conception depends on other abstractions. It depends on free will which is incoherent. This is easy to see because there is an infinite regress of prior causes that lead up to this moment for which you couldn't have had any control by definition. As Sam Harris puts it, "the buck has to stop somewhere". There is also the abstraction of self and other. This is a big topic worthy of its own post. But in short, where do you draw the boundaries between what is you and what is not you? Are you your brain? Surely not. You aren't aware of plenty of things your brain is doing such processing your visual field (unless you're looking at an optical illusion) or interpreting words you're reading right now or muscle memory. That happens without you thinking about it, automatically. You don't feel you are doing it. So if you are aware of your brain, does that mean you are just a passenger, a silent observer? If so, how can you be personally responsible for anything? There is also the whole issue of separate events. What is an event? When does an event start and end? If we are going to be responsible for an event that we caused, then we need to be able to define when that event started and when it ended and what it was that was contained in that event. Or we could define everything as just one happening. We can play the game of not talking about causes and effects, but just one singular happening that is the whole cosmos. That's another way of talking about the world that makes one wonder where individual responsibility could fit in. How can you be responsible if the universe is described as a singular going on and not separate events which you could individually claim responsibility for? If we're going to play this game of talking about responsibility, it might be trickier than we thought.
+
+I see several dangers of the total individual responsibility way of viewing the world. By far the most common danger I see is the downplaying or complete disregard for societal, systemic issues. I met a member of the military that was willing to take responsibility for the mistakes of others he was in charge of. He felt his responsibility extended to others in that case. But when it came to the poor, he completely changed his tune. The poor were completely responsible for where they were at. He believed there was absolutely nothing society could do to help them and we all might as well not try. They'll just have to pick themselves up by their bootstraps on their own. One could have said the same thing about black people during the civil rights era. If they want rights, they will just have to fight for them on their own. I have no responsibility to help them do that. That's their individual responsibility, not mine. This is absurd. Surely, as a society we can agree that even if you want to view things with the "total individual responsibility" lense there are still actions others can take and policies that can be written into law that make the probability of success greater for everyone looking at society as a whole system. You can still play the game of seeing things through the "total individual responsibility" lense while admitting that society has systemic issues that no one individual can solve. These are not actually opposing sides. Doing things like making college tuition free, providing healthcare to all citizens, and ending the war on drugs would make it easier for individuals to take responsibility in their lives. As it turns out, if you take those undue burdens off people, they will find it easier to improve their lives and take responsibility, not get lazy and complacent.
+
+# Conclusion
+So what am I really getting at with all this? These two ways of talking to yourself have their respective benefits and pitfalls. If you feel like you're in control, you can make a fetish out of individual responsibility and go around telling people they control their own destiny and it's all up to them and all they have to do is try. If you don't, you can go around saying everyone is powerless and there is nothing they can do to change the way their life is. But I want to make the point that the confusion really does come along from the way we talk to ourselves about things and the abstractions we build. This is obvious because as a matter of physics, there is no confusion about what is going on in the universe, physically. It is our language that gets us all mixed up, not the goings-on of the universe. But with our limited human brains we need abstractions to simplify the goings-on. We need approximations. I am not advocating we get rid of the idea of individual responsibility or victimization. It may be useful to refine the ideas or replace them with better abstractions or reinterpret them. In software development, there is a saying about abstractions. All abstractions are leaky. We make abstractions and then rely on their infallibility. But abstractions aren't perfect representations of what they're abstracting, or else they wouldn't be called abstractions. What that means is we need to recognize when our abstractions begin to break down and where they don't apply.
+
+At the risk of oversimplifying, it doesn't do us any good to play the blame game so much so that we end up feeling like we have no power to create change in our lives and the lives of others. We end up disempowering ourselves that way and wasting mental energy feeling sorry for ourselves. Everyone reading this has probably met someone that has done that at some point in our lives. It also doesn't do any good to fetishize individual responsibility to the point where we become callous and blind to systemic injustice and inequality or insist that existing social hierarchy is inevitable. This is the mistake that PragerU and Jordan Peterson make in my view.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/](https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/)
diff --git a/content/post/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-incest.md b/content/post/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-incest.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c435ef2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-incest.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "There Is Nothing Wrong With Incest"
+date: 2021-12-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Some online articles use the term "incest survivor" when referring to survivors of rape and other nonconsensual sexual activities. This is a bad term because there's nothing inherently wrong with incest. Let's unpack the related issues.
+
+# Pedophilia
+First, there's pedophilia. Pedophilia is often perpetrated by a family member, making it easy to mix up pedophilia and incest. But incest without pedophilia isn't morally wrong. Two adults engaging in incest doesn't necessarily pose any concerns related to their ability to consent.
+
+Incest between adults and teenagers can be consensual as well. If 16 and 18 year old siblings have sex, there isn't necessarily a victim even though age of consent laws might make it a crime. If the age gap is large and there are power imbalances in the relationship, say a 17 year old son and 40 year old mother, then that's more morally gray and may warrant legal action. It depends on if the 17 year old fully understood and agreed with what happened.
+
+Past the cutoff age of adulthood, people should legally be allowed to have sex with any other consenting adult. If a 20 year old has sex with their 50 year old relative, that should not concern the legal system. Although there is a 30 year age gap, a healthy 20 year old is mature enough to make that decision without it necessarily being coerced or manipulated.
+
+# Inbreeding
+The second issue often brought up in conversations about incest is inbreeding. Inbreeding with immediate family members is bad for two reasons. For one, breeding right now is bad for the planet.[1] For two, inbreeding with immediate family members causes a high chance of genetic abnormalities in offspring.
+
+Incest doesn't necessarily lead to inbreeding though. And it cannot lead to inbreeding if the two relatives are of the same sex or if either are infertile. As long as incest occurs without inbreeding, there is no problem of genetic abnormalities.
+
+# Yuck!
+The third issue is the "yuck factor". People are grossed out by incest. But we don't ban homosexuality or interracial sex because some people find it gross. So we also shouldn't ban incest on that basis either. "It's gross" is not an argument.
+
+Punishing incestuous relationships or preventing incestuous marriage because "yuck" is just self-righteous Puritanism. In general, consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, no matter how gross others find it.
+
+# Conclusion
+In summary, there is nothing morally wrong with incest. Society already punishes pedophilia. Inbreeding should be dealt with separately. And finding incest "yucky" is no reason to criminalize it. Incest should carry no legal penalties and incestuous marriage should also be legal.
+
+Just because laws against incest are a fringe issue that affect very few people doesn't mean they should exist. It's against freedom to have laws that arbitrarily restrict people, even if the number affected is tiny. The government should have a clear policy that incest itself is 100% legally acceptable.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Antinatalism](../../../../2021/09/05/antinatalism/)
diff --git a/content/post/thoughts-on-blogging.md b/content/post/thoughts-on-blogging.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d454b98
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/thoughts-on-blogging.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+title: "Thoughts on Blogging"
+date: 2020-09-22T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Writing a Blog
+I'll start off by saying what this post is not. I'm not going to give any thoughts on how to organize a blog. I'm also not going to give any advice on blog topics, the technical details of running a blog on the web, etc. This post is more about what I believe to be good rules of thumb and things to keep in mind when running a blog. There are going to be exceptions and circumstances where my ideas don't apply. But, on the whole, you should still consider the following if you run a blog.
+
+# Permanence
+When you are writing a blog post that is published to the web, you should think carefully about what you want to say because it can be forever tied to your identity, unless your blog is anonymous. Even then, if you are ever deanonymized, your words can still be linked to you. Remember your blog posts can't ever really be taken down. They can always be archived or saved by somebody before you decide to remove them. This is a good policy for anything you do on the internet in general. If you say something foolish, politically incorrect, something that would preclude you from future job opportunities or personally endanger you (depending on which country you live in), you should consider before publishing it.
+
+I'm not advocating for self-censorship. I'm also not advocating avoiding controversial subjects. Don't be politically correct. Don't avoid saying things just because people might get upset. After all, being offended is not an argument. Just keep in mind the potential consequences of writing about controversial topics. Those consequences may vary depending on where you live. If you live in Iran, the consequences of blogging about gay rights are going to be very different from what they are in western European countries. So don't self-censor, but do be aware.
+
+With all that said, it's also true that the internet has made us less able to forgive. Memory plays a huge role in forgiveness. Before the internet and smartphones, when you did something foolish or said something regrettable, the people that saw or heard it would forget about it. The memory would fade away. Even if they shared your mistake with someone else, that someone couldn't really "relive" the experience. It was just their recollection of events transmitted via spoken words.
+
+With the internet, your mistakes are permanent. Anything you do or say can be recorded and stored forever, and you can never take it back. It's also harder for others to forgive and forget because your mistake is digitally preserved in video, audio, text and other formats. It can be easily shared with an unlimited number of people. To see the full impact of this, all you have to do is look at the high-profile suicide of Amanda Todd[1]. She was a 15-year old Canadian student that was cyberbullied with nude pictures of herself that got screen captured. Those pictures followed her ultimately driving her to suicide.
+
+## The Importance of Forgiveness
+My point is, if someone says or does something regrettable and it gets digitally captured and put on the internet, whether or not they meant to upload it, it doesn't make sense to judge them by that forever. Amanda Todd is an extreme case and I'm not equivocating her suicide with intentionally publishing content in blogging. I'm just pointing out that the internet is an unforgiving place when it comes to making mistakes whether that is a mistake on your blog or leaked nude photos.
+
+People change. Opinions change. Levels of confidence in opinions change. Once information is shared on the internet such as a blog, it's not feasible to remove it since things on the internet have to be treated as lasting forever. The only other option we have is to change our culture. We need to make an effort to be extra forgiving of things that we find online about others and not immediately jump to outrage or disgust as is so easy to do. Having a culture where one regrettable comment you made years ago can prevent you from finding employment is unhealthy. It can't be a good thing psychologically to have past mistakes never stop haunting you as seen with Amanda Todd.
+
+You have a responsibility while blogging to consider what you write carefully before you publish it and it's out there forever. When you decide to blog, you "sign up" for your words to be out there forever. However, readers also carry a responsibility to remember that there is a regular human being behind that blog and humans sometimes make mistakes. Humans have bad days. Humans say things they don't mean. It's all too easy to forget all of that reading words on a screen. With everything I've written so far on my blog, I would be amazed if all of it was completely true and didn't have any errors. However, I think the benefit of getting my ideas out there, for me, outweighs the negative of occasionally getting something very wrong and looking foolish. That's just the risk you take on with a blog.
+
+# Not Looking Foolish
+You should still try to limit the number of mistakes you make on your blog. One way to avoid getting things wrong on your blog that is fairly obvious is just to do your research and check your sources before publishing. That should be a given for anyone writing an informational blog. If your blog is more about you personally, you have less to worry about because research isn't needed. For whatever type of blog you write, it is universally a good thing to be clear-minded when you are writing. If you're not, it can come out in the tone of your blog. Don't blog while you are angry, upset, or exhausted. Give yourself an extra day or two just to proofread what you wrote and check it for typos, sanity, and accuracy. Have a friend proofread it too. Also, think over if you really want to make it public because, again, you have to regard it as permanent.
+
+## Changing Your Mind
+Even if you try your best to limit the number of mistakes you make, errors will slip in anyway. A common feature of honest intellectuals and good bloggers is an ability to admit past errors without hang up. If you write a post that isn't true and later learn that it's bad information, you can edit the original post or make a new post correcting your mistake. Crucially, it shouldn't be a big deal for you to do that. In the intellectual world, we are all working to promote good ideas and get rid of bad ones. It's wrong to think of changing one's mind as being "wishy washy". When you get new information that contradicts what you previously thought, changing your mind is the appropriate thing to do.
+
+Lead member of the United States Coronavirus Task Force Anthony Fauci[2] garnered criticism from the White House for telling people not to wear masks early on in the Coronavirus pandemic and various other "mistakes". The criticism he received and continues to receive over his "mistakes" is absurd because at the time and context in which he made those "mistakes", the information he had available was very limited and pointed to the same advice he was giving. So, the "mistakes" he is being accused of aren't even mistakes. They were the right calls to make at the time. After receiving new information, he "updated" his advice to fit the new evidence about the virus.
+
+This shows that changing your mind doesn't mean you made an error. Maybe the information you posted on your blog was the best available information at the time and it just so happens that it got updated since you posted it. Since I wrote my post about Zoom[3] there has been news about it that I left out. This doesn't mean what I wrote is wrong, just outdated. In a certain sense, everything you post will soon be outdated just because of how language evolves. To be a rational thinking person is to change your mind sometimes, so get used to the idea that it might happen in your blog. You are under no obligation to continue believing the same things.
+
+Those are my thoughts on blogging. I hope they are useful.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Anthony_S._Fauci](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Anthony_S._Fauci)
+[3: /2020/05/23/exposing-zoom/](../../../../2020/05/23/exposing-zoom/)
diff --git a/content/post/thoughts-on-logic.md b/content/post/thoughts-on-logic.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d3aa32e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/thoughts-on-logic.md
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+---
+title: "Thoughts on Logic"
+date: 2020-11-25T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Logic in Education
+The term "critical thinking" gets thrown around a lot in schools, but children aren't ever sat down and explicitly told how to think. Logic needs to be introduced in primary school and reaffirmed throughout middle and high school (secondary school in the UK). Knowing how to think logically is far more important than knowing how to calculate the area of a circle, how volcanoes work, or how to use a bunsen burner. And teaching it shouldn't be politically controversial because there's an important distinction between telling kids what to think versus teaching them how to think. Logic is all about how to think. That's something we all should want others to know how to do well.
+
+The point of teaching the formal, symbolic logic starting at a young age is not so kids, teens and young adults become good at truth tables. The point is they'll internalize logic like any other concept. The pattern recognition part of their brain will automatically recognize valid arguments when they see them. It will also recognize invalid forms of argument and logical fallacies without consciously doing any heavy lifting. That's where the most value is in teaching logic.
+
+When I studied philosophy in community college, I remember there was an art student. He had a great personality and was a very likeable person. Whenever he got called on to answer a question though, he was never able to produce the right answer. It was clear to me that he never learned how to think logically. I wondered what it must be like to be a young adult never having learned that. There are also plenty of functioning older adults out there that never learned how to think logically. To be clear, studying formal logic isn't a prerequisite for logical thought. What I find to be the case with nearly everyone without training in formal logic is that they have an intuitive sense of how to reason, but there's important pieces of the puzzle they're missing. That's what I'm going to focus on in this post, the things that those without experience in formal logic get confused about. In my posts, I try not to assume prior knowledge, so I'm going to explain a bit about logic before I explain some of those missing pieces. If you're already familiar with logic, click here.
+
+# Logic
+Logic is the study of rules of inference[1]. Rules of inference allow you to draw conclusions based on premises. In other words, starting with a statement A, you can conclude statement B. For example, the earth is round is a true statement. Therefore the earth is round or up is down is also a true statement. In fact, I could replace the statement up is down with any proposition Z and the earth is round or Z would still be true. I used the rule of inference "addition" to draw my conclusion, so I'm guaranteed that it's true no matter what Z is. I can apply another rule of inference to get humans have 3 legs therefore either the earth is round or up is down. That is also a true statement. It sounds strange because the normal way of understanding "therefore" is as a causal relationship. In this context, it's a strictly logical implication, not causal. Despite how strange it sounds, humans have 3 legs therefore either the earth is round or up is down logically follows from the earth is round.
+
+To test your skills in logic, I suggest trying out some logic puzzles such as Knights and Knaves[2]. If you get really ambitious, you can try your hand at The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever[3].
+
+# Things People Get Confused About
+Now that I've talked about what logic is, I want to talk about some of the important aspects of logic people commonly get confused about.
+
+## There Are Only 2 Ways an Argument Can Be Disproved
+The first way to disprove an argument is by showing that one of the premises is false. The other way is showing that the structure of the argument is invalid[4]. People are used to thinking of arguments in terms of "arguments for" and "arguments against". That's why it's easy to get confused here. It's the attitude "There's some good arguments for a proposition and some good arguments against it and it's my job to weigh the pros and cons". But, in logic, an argument is either sound or unsound. The property of soundness[5] means that the premises are true and it has valid form. If the conclusion of an argument derives from valid rules of inference based on the premises, then the only way to disprove the argument is to show one of the premises is false. If all the premises are true and the form is valid, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is true. There's no "arguments for" and "arguments against", or "maybe it's wrong some other way". There's no two ways about it. No if, ands or buts. If an argument is sound, the conclusion necessarily follows.
+
+## How Logical Fallacies Work
+A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. It can be formal[6] or informal[7]. Formal fallacies have to do with the structure of an argument. If an argument has bad structure, it is invalid. Informal fallacies have to do with the content of an argument. In my experience, it's more rare for people to commit formal fallacies. This is because there are so many more ways to commit informal fallacies than there are ways to commit formal fallacies. There are only a few ways to structure an argument improperly, but there are virtually endless ways to get the content wrong since the content can be anything at all. Take a look at yourlogicalfallacyis.com[8]. It's good to become familiar with informal fallacies by name and be able to call them out in realtime. To challenge yourself, try doing that during a live presidential debate. There's so many logical fallacies in those it's impossible to keep up, at least for me.
+
+The thing people get confused about when they're unfamiliar with logical fallacies is they think fallacies are a minor problem for an argument, similar to the "arguments for" and "arguments against" I talked about earlier. They see the fallacy as the "argument against" part. That's completely the wrong way to think about logical fallacies. The presence of a single logical fallacy in an argument means that argument is toast. A logical fallacy is not a "counterpoint" to an argument. It fully invalidates the argument. An entirely new argument is needed to prove the conclusion.
+
+It's important that you get it right if you do call out a fallacy. I often see people calling out fallacies that aren't really there. The tendency by amateur logicians to call out fallacies that aren't there might actually be just as prevalent as the tendency for amateur debaters to commit logical fallacies. That's why practice at recognizing fallacies is key. I'm not going to mention every logical fallacy, just the ones I perceive as the most common. I'll start with the fallacy fallacy.
+
+## The Fallacy Fallacy
+Sometimes people think invalidating an argument by pointing out a logical fallacy disproves its conclusion. This is known as the fallacy fallacy[9]. A conclusion is like a destination you want to reach. Premises are where you begin. And an argument is the pathway from the premises to the conclusion. There are many different paths you can take to go from origin to destination. Just because one path doesn't work, that doesn't mean other paths can't. In other words, true statements can be defended with false logic. Perhaps the argument is bad because the premises are faulty. In that case, you need to find alternative premises to make your argument. The other case is the logic is invalid, the form is wrong. In that case, you can keep your premises but you need to fix the form. In the worst case, your argument is unsalvageable and you need to use different premises and different rules of inference to get to your conclusion. But just because you can't make an argument for a conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion is false. Even if no one on earth can make a sound argument for a conclusion, that doesn't mean the conclusion is false.
+
+## The Burden of Proof
+The burden of proof[10] is the obligation to supply evidence for a claim. The reason it's "guilty or not guilty" instead of "guilty or innocent" is because the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt. You are innocent until proven guilty. The null hypothesis[11] is innocence. But the concept of the burden of proof applies far outside the courtroom. It's important in philosophy and it often gets misused. Shifting the burden of proof fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, then when you demand evidence, they demand you prove the opposite. See the gumball analogy[12] for further explanation.
+
+In some cases, it may not even be possible to provide evidence to disprove a claim, but that doesn't mean the claim is true. See Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[13] and Russell's Teapot[14]. In debates about the existence of god, shifting of the burden of proof is an extremely common fallacy committed by theists. "You can't prove god doesn't exist!". Crucially, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If I claim "There is a god", I have the burden of proving it. If I claim "There are no gods", then I have the burden to prove that. If I claim "There are probably gods", then I have the burden of proving that there are probably gods. If I claim "It's possible for a god to exist", then I have to somehow prove that it's possible, that there's a greater-than-zero chance of it occurring. So on and so forth for every claim.
+
+The term "evidence" in this context isn't limited to hard, physical evidence. In The Simulation Argument[15], Nick Bostrom[16] demonstrates that there is a 1 in 3 probability that we are living in a simulation despite not referencing any direct physical evidence of a simulated universe. It would be hard to say what direct evidence of a simulated universe would even look like. His paper doesn't depend on that many external observable facts about the physical universe either. The assumptions he does rely on to make his argument are fairly uncontroversial, which makes his strong result all the more surprising. It just goes to show there are many ways to meet the burden of proof for a claim, not all relying on hard physical evidence.
+
+## Ad Hominem Fallacy
+There are several ways people get confused over the argumentum ad hominem. The ad hominem fallacy[17] is a logical fallacy where you attempt to refute someone's argument by attacking their character. If you attack someone's character, that might harm their credibility. But, a person's credibility has nothing to do with the logical soundness of their argument. Soundness of an argument depends only upon the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument. I'm not saying credibility isn't important. It is. Credibility may influence your willingness to believe claims made by someone, but that's a separate issue. Your willingness to believe someone also bears no relation to the soundness of their argument or the truth of the claim they're making. The soundness of a logical argument is independent of the reputation of the person making it.
+
+Yet another way people misunderstand the ad hominem fallacy is they think it's equivalent to being mean or sarcastic in an argument. An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attempts to disprove your argument by attacking you personally. If they attack you personally and disprove your argument separately, that's not an ad hominem fallacy. That's just them being rude. Yes it would be nice if people were compassionate to others all the time, but being rude in a debate doesn't count as a fallacy. See examples in the ad hominem fallacy fallacy[18].
+
+## Tu Quoque Fallacy
+Tu Quoque translates into "you too!". It's also known as the appeal to hypocrisy and whataboutism[19]. This one is most often used in political debates between candidates to attack each other's credibility and (seemingly) invalidate their opponent's argument. The idea is if you can call someone a hypocrite, that invalidates their argument. Obviously it doesn't. We've been over that. The only way to invalidate an argument is by showing the premises to be false or the structure to be invalid. It might be a good strategy for "winning" a debate as judged by laypeople with no training in logic, but calling someone a hypocrite does nothing against their argument, even if they are in fact a hypocrite. I've never heard it explicitly said that someone's argument is wrong because they are a hypocrite, only implied. This basically goes back to a person's credibility being irrelevant to the truth of their argument.
+
+## Bad Heuristics
+There are several logical fallacies which fall into the category of what I call "bad heuristics[20]". They are substitutes for using logic to make up your own mind.
+
+### Bandwagon
+This one is the most widely-known. It simply means that many people believe something, so it must be true. There may be an evolutionary/psychological pressure to conform to what everyone else believes since it's perceived as the safest option. Several studies have been done showing that if you put a test subject in a group where the majority believes something, even if it's completely irrational, the subject will often just go along with it. Roughly 85% of the world's population believes in some form of god or gods[21] depending on how you ask the question. There's no evidence for the existence of any gods, so their beliefs are unfounded. In other words, just going along with what everyone else believes is a bad heuristic.
+
+### Genetic
+The genetic fallacy is whenever someone says something is good or true because it comes from a certain source. We can look at the media for example. While it is certainly true that some news sources are more reliable than others, the truth of an argument doesn't change depending on which news source makes it. This doesn't diminish the importance of having reliable sources of news. As a personal example, when Nick Bostrom[22] releases a new paper, I make an educated guess that I'll find it interesting based on his previous work being interesting. But the new paper that I read won't be interesting because all his previous work is. It will be interesting because of the contents of the paper. If you pick good sources of information, then that's actually not a bad heuristic for truth. You will only end up with a bad heuristic for truth if you pick bad sources of information, such as Facecrook. Just remember that the source of information has no bearing on the truth of the information. I'm really beating this point to death, but it bears repeating. The only determining factors for the soundness of an argument are the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.
+
+### Nature
+The appeal to nature fallacy happens when someone says something is good, just or ideal because it's "natural". Two problems with that. For one, everything that happens is natural because we live in the natural world. But let's entertain the fallacy for a moment and define "natural" as things that aren't products of human intelligence. By that definition, coronavirus is natural. Natural disasters are natural. It's even in the name. Lots of horrible things are natural. "Unnaturalness" is often used to argue against homosexuality. Other species of primate also show homosexual behavior, so homosexuality is natural even in non-human animals. To sum up, appealing to nature is a bad heuristic since it's hard to define what counts as natural and many natural things everyone agrees are natural are not good, while things people call "artificial", such as vaccines, are good.
+
+### Middle Ground
+Taking the "middle ground" position between two extremes is probably an even poorer heuristic for truth than the bandwagon. People think taking the middle ground means they're unbiased. They think having an "extreme" position means you are heavily biased. They perceive the middle ground as "balanced" and fair. But how do you go about deciding where the extremes are? Popular opinion? If that's the case, then we're back at the bandwagon fallacy. If you have some other way of determining the extremes, then what is it exactly? What if the middle ground is ambiguous?
+
+Being unbiased doesn't mean you take the middle ground on every issue. It just means you're using another poor proxy for the truth because you can't be bothered to think for yourself. There's no reason to think that truth has to lie somewhere in the middle.
+
+### Anecdotal
+Personal experiences and isolated examples can be a bad heuristic for interpreting the world around you if you extrapolate them beyond their application. I sometimes use personal experiences as examples of things I already know to be true. But I'm not saying those things are true because of my personal experiences. Quantitative scientific measures are more accurate than personal experiences because they are based on lots of data collected in a controlled way as opposed to individual isolated examples collected over a single human lifetime. To sum up this section, trust the statistics. It's not to say they can't be wrong, but they have numerical weight. As the saying goes, numbers don't lie.
+
+That wraps it up for the bad heuristics. Now we can move from fallacies to something new: the limits of logic. This is more of a surprising result about logic that people aren't aware of rather than something people get confused about.
+
+## Logic Has Limits
+After you become really good at doing any type of logic, whether it be computational, mathematical, inductive, deductive, etc, you'll eventually wonder if it's possible for logic to prove everything. Turns out it's not. And we can prove it...using logic. Mind bending, right? But before we talk about that, I'll have to explain axioms. If you're already familiar with axioms, feel free to skip.
+
+### Axioms
+I've said that for an argument to be valid, the premises must be true. But how do we know the premises are true? We could make another argument to prove each premise, but then we'll just have the same problem we started with. We'll have to prove each one of the premises that we used in our argument to prove our original premises. It's an infinite regress[23]. To resolve this, we need a starting point, an axiom. An axiom[24] is a proposition that is taken for granted. It is assumed to be true without justification. There are various ideas about what axioms one should accept. Typically they tend to be kept as simple as possible. For example, take a look at the logical absolutes[25]: The Law of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle.
+
+### Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems
+In the early 1920's, famous German mathematician David Hilbert[26] put forward a proposal calling for the axiomatization of mathematics. He wanted to make all mathematical truths reducible to an agreed upon set of axioms such that all true statements could be proved, but no false statements could be proved. In 1931, one of the most significant logicians in history, Kurt Gödel[27], showed that no set of axioms is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. See Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems[28]. Gödel used mathematical logic to show that there are some places mathematical logic cannot go. Boiled down, he proved that logic cannot prove everything. This is also true in computing. See The Halting Problem[29]. The essence of the trick seems to be, no matter which logic you're talking about, to find a way to encode the liar paradox[30] in the system. A prerequisite for that is somehow getting the logical system to talk about itself. Gödel found a very fascinating theorem and I would recommend for anyone interested to look more in depth at it.
+
+# Conclusion
+That's all I've got for this post. I think I've packed in a lot of information and good examples to research. Even if you never learn logic, I believe by reading this post you get a sense of what logic is all about and how to at least recognize some common informal fallacies and misunderstandings. I tried to include plenty of useful external links. This post is barely scratching the surface though. For some readers, just scratching the surface is good enough. But for all I know, the next Gödel might be reading this. In 2011, a 25-year old math problem about superpermutations was solved by an anonymous 4chan user[31]. If that doesn't show that cleverness can come from anywhere, I don't what does.
+
+I hope you enjoyed the post. If there's anything that you think I should have covered in this post or that I should talk in the future, let me know about it[32].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Knights_and_Knaves](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Knights_and_Knaves)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/The_Hardest_Logic_Puzzle_Ever](https://wikiless.org/wiki/The_Hardest_Logic_Puzzle_Ever)
+[4: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_validity](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_validity)
+[5: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soundness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soundness)
+[6: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy)
+[8: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com)
+[9: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy)
+[10: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof)
+[11: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis)
+[12: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty#Gumball_analogy](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty#Gumball_analogy)
+[13: https://www.spaghettimonster.org/](https://www.spaghettimonster.org/)
+[14: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot)
+[15: https://www.simulation-argument.com](https://www.simulation-argument.com)
+[16: https://www.nickbostrom.com/papers](https://www.nickbostrom.com/papers)
+[17: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem)
+[18: https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html](https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html)
+[19: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
+[20: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Heuristic](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Heuristic)
+[21: https://wikiless.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations](https://wikiless.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations)
+[22: https://www.nickbostrom.com/papers](https://www.nickbostrom.com/papers)
+[23: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Infinite_regress](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Infinite_regress)
+[24: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Axiom](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Axiom)
+[25: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_Logical_Absolutes](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_Logical_Absolutes)
+[26: https://wikiless.org/wiki/David_Hilbert](https://wikiless.org/wiki/David_Hilbert)
+[27: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del)
+[28: https://stopa.io/post/269](https://stopa.io/post/269)
+[29: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Halting_problem](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Halting_problem)
+[30: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liar_paradox](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)
+[31: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=OZzIvl1tbPo](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=OZzIvl1tbPo)
+[32: mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch](mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch)
diff --git a/content/post/toll-roads-should-be-illegal.md b/content/post/toll-roads-should-be-illegal.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c3b96bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/toll-roads-should-be-illegal.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Toll Roads Should Be Illegal"
+date: 2022-01-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+I will go out of my way to avoid toll roads. I don't care if it costs more. I don't care if they're better quality. I'm aware that even if I don't pay tolls on private roads, I still pay for the upkeep of public roads through taxes. I still believe public roads are superior and toll roads should be illegal.
+
+When I pay taxes for public infrastructure and services that everyone needs, I don't have to pay for them at the point of service. I don't have to think about fees or wade through red tape or do mental housekeeping. The infrastructure is just there when it's needed, no questions asked.
+
+Even if I never drive and I'm just paying road upkeep for others, I'm okay with that. Enough other people need to drive that I don't mind it. Helping others feels good. Some drivers are workers delivering food and other resources I need to live. I don't want them to be impeded.
+
+As a programmer, I like smoothly-operating minimally complex systems. Reducing complexity is usually a good thing. Less complexity in society means we can understand it better and identify and fix the problems faster.
+
+Having toll roads needlessly increases complexity of the highway system at the expense of drivers. Toll roads slow down traffic. They create bullshit jobs (toll booth attendants). They require persistent video surveillance and many use RFID, making them surveillance monsters. They also harass drivers with fines, arrests, and loss of driving privileges. All needless complication.
+
+The idea of toll roads being temporary until construction costs are covered has worked out for some roads, but in other cases, the private corporations remain, charging drivers higher and higher toll fees decades after the cost of building the road is recovered. Perhaps temporary tolls would be okay if the government could force them to close after the cost is made up.
+
+The argument that toll roads are higher quality misses the point that some people can't afford them. High quality roads should be available to all. The government mismanaging tax money and not fixing roads is no reason to privatize roads. It's a reason to fix the government.
+
+Imagine how ridiculous it would be if I proposed a toll sidewalk. To walk on it, you have to pay my toll. I set my fees high because walking a different route takes a lot longer. I have surveillance cameras on my sidewalk to make sure unauthorized people don't walk it. I justify my strip of sidewalk by pointing out it's better maintained than the public sidewalk, which you might fall or trip on since the government doesn't maintain it well.
+
+Obviously absurd. We want better maintained public sidewalks, not private toll sidewalks. Toll roads are absurd for the same reasons. Sidewalks and roads should be both well-maintained and available to all. And this thinking extends beyond just roads.
+
+In wealthy societies, we ought to pool resources for things everybody needs. For example, everybody needs shelter, enough food to live, enough clean water to live, internet, healthcare, sidewalks and roads. The idea that poor people should starve or freeze out in the cold just because it might require each individual to chip in a small amount is repugnant.
+
+I understand the desire to avoid paying taxes when your corrupt government blows it on the rich instead of spending it on things everybody needs. But I don't understand being so stingy that you won't chip in even when it goes directly towards things everybody needs.
+
+There are people that would like to privatize everything and have everyone pay at the point of service. They disagree on principle with taxes because taxes might benefit others, which goes against their believe that people living in a society shouldn't help each other out. This is just extreme stinginess.
+
+I believe in taxes that go towards the common good, but not towards the bloated military budget enriching defense contractors. I believe sharing with others is fundamentally good and that we must eliminate toll roads because roads should be shared among all drivers, not just those who can afford the high fees.
diff --git a/content/post/turn-off-surveillance-devices.md b/content/post/turn-off-surveillance-devices.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..07708cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/turn-off-surveillance-devices.md
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+title: "Turn Off Surveillance Devices"
+date: 2021-11-25T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Many fools now voluntarily bug their own homes with "digital assistants". It is beyond a reasonable doubt that these devices also function as corporate/government wiretaps. There are several confirmed news reports showing that Alexas, for example, record and send voice data to Amazon without explicit user consent. Amazon then stores user conversations and will not delete them, even when asked. Police have issued warrants for that voice data and Amazon has a history of cooperation with police. In effect, Amazon is building a total surveillance state.
+
+Persistent audio/video surveillance is a very nasty thing to subject roommates and visitors to. It is a violation of an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy in what is supposed to be a private space. If you're a homeowner or a renter, please don't put these nasty devices in your home.
+
+If you're visiting someone's home or apartment, kindly ask them to disconnect or unplug any digital assistants and smart devices they own. While digital assistants are the worst offenders, smart TVs, smartphones, and internet of stings devices are also known to snoop. These wiretaps don't belong in people's homes in the first place, so you're well within the bounds of reason to request privacy.
diff --git a/content/post/use-a-password-manager.md b/content/post/use-a-password-manager.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8fb338d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/use-a-password-manager.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: "Use a Password Manager"
+date: 2022-01-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+It's frustrating watching normies forget their insecure passwords. I've almost come to the point of refusing helping people recover accounts of forgotten passwords unless they also let me set up a password manager for them. If I don't, it invariably ends in them forgetting or misplacing their passwords again.
+
+A password manager is a program that remembers your passwords for you. The main idea is there's one master password you use to access all your other passwords. If you don't use a password manager for your passwords, excluding disk encryption, then you're doing passwords wrong.
+
+To make the best use of a password manager, the master password should be secure[1] and you should keep a backup of your password database. You should also use two-factor authentication. Just create a dedicated password database on a separate device only for TOTP codes.[2] That will make it very difficult for an attacker to break into your accounts.
+
+Be sure to use a free, preferably non-networked password manager like KeepassXC[3] for desktop and KeepassDX[4] for Android. Just don't use proprietary poo like LastPass. Passage[5] seems like a good option for power users. If you need your passwords synced on multiple devices, you can use a separate file-syncing program like EteSync[6].
+
+I know exactly what some people are thinking: "I just use the same/similar password for everything. It's easier!". If this is you, you need a password manager. Reusing passwords for online accounts is extremely foolish.
+
+Password managers put all your eggs in one secure basket, or two baskets if you're using TOTP. Password reuse is the opposite. It puts all your eggs in every basket. If even one of the sites you use is compromised, all your accounts are doomed. Don't assume it won't happen to you.
+
+Secure your accounts before something happens. Use a password manager.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: CorrectHorseBatteryStaple](https://xkcd.com/936/)
+[2: TOTP Security](https://keepassxc.org/docs/#faq-security-totp)
+[3: KeepassXC](https://keepassxc.org)
+[4: KeepassDX](https://www.keepassdx.com/)
+[5: Passage](https://github.com/FiloSottile/passage)
+[6: Etesync](https://www.etesync.com)
diff --git a/content/post/use-free-software.md b/content/post/use-free-software.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6c84be2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/use-free-software.md
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+title: "Use Free Software"
+date: 2020-10-20T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+In previous posts, I have mentioned a lot about free software versus proprietary software. But I have never dedicated a standalone post to free software, so I'm doing that now. While I find the history of free software[1] fascinating, I'm not going to get into that in this post. This is more of a persuasive post. I want to convince you to use free software wherever possible rather than proprietary software[2]. There is a lot to be said on the subject. This post is about why you should use free software, not why you should code it. There are plenty of incentives to code free software though. The reason I'm choosing to focus on the user is that there's already so much free software out there, but it's not getting anywhere near the usage it deserves.
+
+# What is Free/Libre Software?
+The word "free" in "free software" means free as in freedom, not free as in price. Price isn't the issue with free software, freedom is. For software to be free, it must have the 4 essential freedoms:
+
+0. The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
+1. The freedom to study how the program works and modify it.
+2. The freedom to redistribute copies of the program to others.
+3. The freedom to distribute copies of modified versions of the program to others.
+
+# Why Does it Matter?
+Why are the 4 freedoms important? The most relevant answer I can give for software users is that it boils down to social and economic control. The 4 freedoms prevent the developer of the software from wielding too much power over its users. I will start with freedom 0 and go one by one explaining how each freedom impacts the social system between developers and users.
+
+## Freedom 0
+Freedom 0 ensures that the user can use the program however they wish. Without freedom 0, the developer of the software can impose rules about how the program may or may not be used. If you use the program in a way that the developer doesn't approve of, then the developer may take legal action against you. This can be done with EULA[3]s (End-user license agreements). Click-wrap licenses can even prevent users from knowing there are restrictions on the program's use until after starting the installation process. Users may be prevented from publishing performance information about the program to compare it to competitors, trying to reverse engineer the program for learning, developing plugins for the program, or any number of other legitimate uses of the program. Developers telling users what they can and can't do with programs on their own computer gives the developer tremendous control over the users. Freedom 0 prevents this by giving the user the right to do anything with the program that they are able to get it to do (within the bounds of other applicable laws).
+
+## Freedom 1
+Programs are made up of "source code". Source code is the developer-readable format of a program. Your average Joe could look at a program's source code and it would look like gibberish. But a sufficiently skilled programmer could read the source code and make sense of the program. With compiled languages, developers cannot run a program from its source code. It has to be compiled first. In summary, source code is the format the developer can understand the program and compiled code is the format the machine can actually run the program.
+
+After the program is compiled, it's prohibitively difficult to make sense of the program even for developers. One strategy developers use to prevent other developers from reverse-engineering their program is to write the source code, then release only the compiled version of the program to the public. This way, only the developer can understand what the program really does and how it works. Not only that, but only they can make changes to the program. These programs are known as proprietary programs. It puts the developer in a position of power over the user and incentivizes the developer to add features that might hurt the user since the user is powerless to remove the bad features. This is also not conjecture. Proprietary programs often have malicious anti-features that benefit the developer and hurt the users such as DRM[4], surveillance, back doors[5], censorship, tethers[6] and other tyrannical anti-features[7].
+
+It's possible to reverse engineer a compiled program, but it's an extremely arduous process, especially for very large programs. Free software wants practical freedom to understand and change the program, not freedom in theory. Therefore, for Freedom 1 to be satisfied, the source code of the program must be distributed alongside the compiled version of the program. This ensures that anyone who uses the program has the opportunity to understand and modify it. This grants users individual control over the program. With Freedom 1, developers have less incentive to add malicious anti-features since other developers might notice them. This could cause people not to use programs made by that developer and for the developer to lose respect.
+
+Freedom 1 is necessary but incomplete. The problem is not everyone is a programmer, so not everyone has the skills to understand and modify their programs to their liking. They are still stuck with whatever the developer gives them. The freedom to study and modify the program means nothing to non-programmers. This is why we need Freedoms 2 and 3.
+
+## Freedom 2
+Freedoms 2 and 3 together grant collective control over the program. Freedom 2 grants the freedom to distribute exact copies of the program. If you enjoy a program, you can share it free of charge with your friends. And they can share it with their friends. Anyone who finds it useful can share it with others. If you have freedoms 0 and 1 but not 2, then you can do whatever you want with the program including studying and modifying it, but others can't benefit because you're not allowed to share the program. What Freedom 2 prevents is the developer having power over the users via controlling program distribution. A developer can't do things to prevent others from sharing the program. This means the developer is not in sole control over the distribution of the program.
+
+As an example, Windows 10 is a proprietary operating system. An operating system is just a program that acts as a middleman (abstraction layer) between the user and the hardware. It manages system resources. Only Microsoft is allowed to distribute the Windows 10 operating system. You may not distribute it yourself. Secondarily, in order to unlock all the features of Windows 10, you have to buy a Windows 10 license from Microsoft. Microsoft is in control of the distribution of the license keys as well. If I distributed license keys for Windows 10 to others, there could be legal ramifications for me. Microsoft punishes sharing. Freedom 2 protects sharing of software with the idea that sharing is generally a good thing and should be encouraged. Sharing software isn't like sharing physical goods. If 5 people share a pizza, everyone gets less pizza. But if 5 people use the same program, then all 5 get the full benefit of the program. The benefit I get out of using it is not degraded by sharing it with others. Software is not like a pizza. It's more like a pizza recipe.
+
+## Freedom 3
+Continuing with the pizza analogy, Freedom 1 gives you the right to change the "recipe". You can make improvements and benefit from them. Freedom 3 lets you share your modified recipe with others so they can also benefit from your improvements. You can imagine a situation in which Freedoms 0, 1, and 2 are granted, but not 3. This would mean users can use the program any way they wish, modify it, and share exact copies, but not share modified copies. This is disastrous for collective control over the program. It would mean only the developer could make updates. "Forks" couldn't be public. Everyone else is free to make changes, but non-programmers can't benefit from those changes.
+
+As I said before, free software is about practical control over the program, not control in theory. In reality, non-programmers can't make changes they want to make to the program because they don't know how to code. Even among programmers, one programmer might not have the expertise to modify a program to their liking or they might not be familiar with the programming language used. So unequipped developers and users rely on other developers to make the changes they desire. Without Freedom 3, only the original developer or group of developers is allowed to distribute modified versions of the program. In other words, the original developers retain a monopoly on modifications. They could charge any price for a requested feature. If they decide to stop maintaining the project, then other developers will be powerless to continue program maintenance. Freedom 3 is necessary to enable a healthy ecosystem of forks[8] to suit the needs of each type of user.
+
+Since the original developer doesn't have a monopoly on modifications with Freedom 3, other developers can improve upon the code, add features they desire, remove features they don't desire, and collaboratively contribute to the program. This is just not possible without Freedom 3.
+
+# Free Software is not a Panacea
+At the bare minimum of ethical standards for software, programs should be free software. Free software ensures that the social system around the software is just, that it doesn't automatically create unjust power differentials between developers and users and between developers and others developers that otherwise wouldn't be there. Obviously if developer A is more skilled than developer B, developer A will be better able to modify the program to their liking. And obviously if user A is wealthy and wants feature X and user B isn't wealthy and wants feature Y, then user A can pay developers to prioritize feature X over feature Y. Free software is not free from influence by corporate interests. The Mozilla Foundation wrote Firefox to use the Google search engine because Google funds Firefox development in return. Microsoft, the proprietary software giant, is on the Linux Foundation. Linus Torvalds has been responsible for big decisions in the mainline Linux kernel for decades. Free software doesn't even mean development of software is democratic in practice. Benevolent dictator for life[9] is the title given to free software developers that get the final say in development decisions. Since the "dictator" has the majority of development inertia behind them, any developer that might think of forking the software upon a development dispute would think twice since the inertia for the project already lies behind the dictator's fork. Free software also doesn't have to be user friendly. It doesn't have to have accessibility for those that speak foreign languages or the disabled. It can even be socially harmful and still qualify as free software. Some free software may require expensive hardware that only the wealthy can afford. Accessibility is limited to the rich in that case. Free software doesn't solve everything.
+
+# Still, Use It
+Free software does not solve the problems I mentioned and it's not meant to. The problems I described can possibly be avoided, with great care. With proprietary software, they are downright unavoidable. Proprietary software automatically sets up an unjust social system around software. It's a non-starter. Doomed before it even starts. There is no way to create proprietary software and have it be as ethical as free software because it doesn't meet the basic requirements for a just social and economic system. It discourages understanding, sharing, and collaboration. It's no good. If you use proprietary software often, it becomes a habit. And when it becomes a habit, the developer of the software gains influence over you because they control the software you rely on.
+
+Developers of proprietary software have a monetary incentive to mistreat their users. Anti-features can be very profitable. They have no reason not to add anti-features since others can't understand the compiled code and won't necessarily even know about the anti-features and couldn't do anything about them even if they did because they're not allowed to modify the program. Proprietary programs are instruments of unjust control over the users. Proprietary software should not exist. It should all be eradicated and replaced with free software instead. You shouldn't tolerate it if you can at all help it. The best way you can help with the liberation of cyberspace is by switching to using as much free software as possible instead of the proprietary software you might currently be using. Free software is how we stay in control of our own computing. Without it, our devices will cease to be our own. The code we run on our devices will be under the control of developers with incentives to do us harm. We want the developers writing our software to have incentives to write software that only benefits us. If we refuse to use proprietary software and use free software instead, developers will see they can't get away with not giving users their freedoms.
+
+In the future I envision, developers will lose all incentive to write proprietary software knowing in advance no one will use it. It won't even cross their minds as a possibility. Right now, getting people to switch to free software is a struggle. Many proprietary programs benefit heavily from the network effect[10], keeping many people dependent. Free software is not even a well known social issue, yet. But with enough awareness and with enough people using free software, the network effect will work in favor of a liberated cyberspace, not a divided, controlled, proprietary one. Computers become more integral to our way of life every day. Our devices have become extensions of ourselves. This is why it's critical that they at least run free software. That's the only way we can hope to trust them. Use as much free software as you can and spread the word to others. We need to take back our computing.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
+[2: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/)
+[3: https://wikiless.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement](https://wikiless.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing))
+[6: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-tethers.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-tethers.html)
+[7: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development))
+[9: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life)
+[10: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Network_effect](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Network_effect)
diff --git a/content/post/using-email.md b/content/post/using-email.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..85ea2b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/using-email.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+title: "Using Email"
+date: 2020-10-29T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Preface
+Email is a very old internet standard, predating the world wide web. It was first defined in 1982. It was updated[1] in 2008 and remains in widespread use. It's not a great protocol by today's standards, but we're all stuck with it. You almost certainly already have an email account. Although everyone has an email account, not everyone understands how email works or how to make the most of their account. Almost everyone with an email account just chose the first free, convenient option available for an email service provider. I know that's what I did at first. Most people just use Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, AOL, or one of the other top providers. Knowing this has motivated me to write this post because I fear that others are missing out on a better email experience.
+
+# Choosing an Email Service Provider
+The first step before using email is choosing an email service provider. Email is a federated[2] protocol. This means that no single entity "owns" email. If you want, you can create your own email provider and use it. Instead of john@gmail.com, your domain would be something like john@johnsdomain.com. But running your own mail server can be expensive and time-consuming. Mail servers also have many moving parts and require maintenance, so I won't be writing about how to set up your own mail server. It's just not a realistic option for non-technical users of email.
+
+The best alternative to self-hosting is to pick an email service provider wisely. This list is obviously subjective, but here are some criteria which a good email service provider will meet:
+
+* Only free software
+* IMAP/POP3 support
+* No logs policy
+* Inside a privacy-respecting country
+* Transparency reports
+* Anonymous sign up
+* Anonymous payment methods
+* 2-factor authentication (TOTP)
+* Inbound encryption (PGP)
+* Tor support
+* Sustainable business model
+* Well-established
+* Support team / help center
+* Migration support
+
+## Free Software
+The first and most important requirement is that the email provider uses exclusively free software. This means their website and webmail portal do not require proprietary Javascript[3]. Javascript licenses should be included somewhere on the site or it should work without Javascript enabled. Also, all backend software should be free. In other words, if an email provider uses Mac or Windows to host the email server, it's as good as garbage and you shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It should probably run on GNU/Linux or FreeBSD. Good email providers support IMAP and POP3 for accessing email. Those protocols allow you to access emails from your own email client[4] on any device. More on that later. Now onto security and privacy.
+
+## Privacy and Security
+The email provider should have a policy of not keeping logs. This brings me to my next and important point that the email provider needs to reside within a privacy-respecting country. The legal requirements for collecting logs and sharing user data are going to differ depending on which country it's in. Using an email provider based in the US or the UK is a very bad idea. Those countries don't have strong privacy considerations and your email data (and metadata) won't be safe. Email providers in those countries can't guarantee safety of your emails. You can get a lot of information about what data is collected just by actually reading the Terms of Service when you sign up. Don't use an email provider like Gmail, Outlook, or Yahoo that logs all your emails and sells them to advertisers. If it's in the Terms of Service that the service shares non-trivial data with third parties, then that email service is garbage and you shouldn't use it. In fact, good email providers will never share any data without a court order first. In order to take an email provider's claims of protecting your data seriously, the email provider should have a transparency report providing as much detail as is legal about what information they can be forced to turn over, when, and how often it actually happens.
+
+Also, email providers can't share information about you they don't have. If the email service provider offers anonymous sign up (they don't request your name, address, phone number or other PII), this is a good sign. They should also offer anonymous payment mechanisms (cash or cryptocurrency). You should not provide personal information just to sign up for an email account. Any email service that requires you to probably doesn't care very much about your privacy. For security, your email provider should use two-factor authentication to prevent your account from being stolen. In your browser, check the email service's website for TLS 1.3. If the email service website doesn't support TLS 1.3, that's a bad sign. Check that they support DANE/TLSA. They should claim to encrypt the hard disks of the email server or the email accounts themselves to prohibit data theft. They shouldn't ever send any email data unencrypted. It should always use TLS. The email service should provide you with "inbound encryption". Inbound encryption means you can generate a keypair and provide the email service your public key to encrypt your emails with. This means the email service encrypts your emails, as they are received, on their servers with a key only you have access to. If your emails are later stolen or requested via court order, the service will only be able to provide encrypted versions of your emails unreadable to anyone except you.
+
+Another good sign is if the email service supports access over Tor. The webmail client should support access over Tor Browser. It shouldn't block tor connections. If it has an onion address, then the email service went through extra trouble for Tor support. As I said, email providers can't share information about you they don't have. If you connect over Tor, you are protecting your IP address. That means you don't have to trust the email service not to log your IP when you access email.
+
+## Business Operations
+I've gone over some of the technical details, but I haven't mentioned the business model yet. When you sign up for an email service, you need to check how they are supporting the service financially. There's a famous adage about online products: "If it's free, you're the product". Unless your email service provider is a subscription service, donation funded or the host is just an altruist, then your emails and metadata are probably being sold to advertisers. Also you'll want to make sure they are "well-established". The service provider shouldn't be too obscure. This is subjective but you probably want a few thousand other people to also be using the service. This is an indicator that the service is reliable. People want email to "just work". If it has lots of downtime, is slow or it doesn't work well, it won't take long for people to switch to another service. Another indicator of reliability is that it has been around for a few years without major data breaches. If there have been data breaches, was the email service quick to respond? Do they have a dedicated 24/7 support team or help center for answering any questions you might have? If you can't get your emails one day, will you have somebody to contact for support? A highly available, quick-to-reply support team is a good sign that the email service is competent. The email service should also have migration support. Migration support makes it easier to switch email providers if you ever want to use a different one.
+
+Nothing I've mentioned gives you a 100% guarantee that the email provider is secure, will stay in operation, doesn't sell your data to advertisers, or is competent. But the more criteria that the email provider meets, the better the chances that it's a good one. At some point you have to say "Okay, this email service meets so many criteria of being ethical that it either actually operates ethically or is so good at faking it I could never hope to tell the difference anyway". Once you do enough research where you can confidently say that, then you should consider using it. There are other features email services provide that I haven't mentioned such as email aliasing and email storage space. Those depend heavily on how you use email and if I listed all possible features of an email service, I'd never finish this post. But I think I have covered some of the key features to look for when choosing an email service.
+
+# Using an Email Client
+The most common way by far to access email nowadays is using webmail which is a shame. Webmail is when you access your email account in the browser. Remember that email predates the web, so it doesn't rely on the web at all. It's just that people have been spoiled by web apps and never need to leave the browser environment any more. Using an email client, also known as a user agent, is a more satisfying way to use email. It provides functionality such as easy account navigation, email filtering, email flagging, calendaring, contacts, and more. Webmail also provides the same features, but often requires running proprietary Javascript to accomplish the same tasks. Using an email client gives you a single, unified user experience that you can customize to your liking for all email accounts, even if the accounts are on different email services. Using an email client empowers you to use inbound encryption, managing your encryption keys yourself. I just want to quickly mention that Protonmail[5] requires installing a proprietary bridge application[6] for IMAP and SMTP support. If you want to use Protonmail with your own email client, you'll have to install their software. I'm not trying to pick on them in particular. I just want to point out it's more secure to use email clients that work for any email provider, not client programs that the specific email service has homebrewed even if they are free software programs. Individualized email clients and client-related programs likely have less code review and less scrutiny which means you're less secure using them. Some good email clients are Thunderbird[7], Evolution[8] or Mutt[9] if you prefer a terminal. Microsoft Outlook[10] is common, but it is proprietary. Don't use it.
+
+## POP3
+Since most email users have been totally spoiled by the web, they have never heard the terms POP3 and IMAP. When you use an email client, you will have a choice of which protocol you prefer. POP stands for Post Office Protocol. The first version of POP was created in 1984. POP3 fetches emails from the remote email server, then deletes them from the server. It can be configured not to do that, but that's its main benefit. If you only check email from a single device and you don't want your emails hanging around on someone else's computer, then POP is the way to go. Sent emails are stored in the client you sent them. Deleted emails are only deleted in the client you deleted them in. So POP is not a good protocol if you are using multiple devices to check email. It doesn't try to sync across devices. POP is also good to use if you have very little space allocated to you on the remote server, but you regularly send and receive large email attachments.
+
+## IMAP
+IMAP stands for Internet Messaging Access Protocol. It was created in 1986. IMAP makes use of the remote email server. All messages are stored on the remote server. When you delete an email, it is deleted on the server. When you send an email, it is stored on the server. When you read an email, the server marks it as read. If you switch devices, your email inbox will look the same. It has a consistent experience across multiple devices. This is probably what you want to use most of the time.
+
+# Email Use Cases
+Even if you follow this guide on picking an email service and you use an email client and use 2-factor authentication and inbound encrypt all your emails and use POP3, it's likely that your correspondents are using Gmail, Outlook and Yahoo. Even though you could have the most secure email setup short of self-hosting, everyone you email is still using proprietary Javascript with no 2FA unencrypted webmail with every email being parsed and sold to advertisers and mass surveilled. My point is don't use email for personal correspondence. The fact is email is just an old insecure protocol. It doesn't even use end to end encryption because it comes from a different era. You can use PGP to encrypt your emails, but it has so many problems[11] that I can't recommend it for regular use. Almost no one uses it, it's difficult to use, and has many downsides. If you have to use email for personal or business correspondence, use PGP to encrypt. But the best advice I can give is just to avoid using email.
+
+## Email Privacy
+The best time to use email is when it's required. When you're signing up for a website that requires email for instance. You don't have to only have 1 email account either. I use several email aliases depending on the purpose. You can use different email accounts for every service you sign up for if you want. There's throwaway email accounts available if you need to send or receive email quickly and then ditch the account. I wouldn't recommend using email for receiving newsletters or information that you have another way of accessing. I might make another post talking about RSS, but it's basically a web feed. RSS readers can pull content from all the websites that support RSS that you're interested in without you actually visiting those sites. It's a similar experience to using an email client, but with less of a digital footprint. With email, your email server has a record of which feeds you are subscribed to. With RSS, there is no "account". No digital footprint showing you subscribed to that feed is necessarily created. If you anonymize RSS over Tor, then even a passive adversary like your ISP will have a hard time figuring out which news feeds you read. Even if you just visit the news site directly, that's still arguably better for your privacy in terms of minimizing your digital footprint.
+
+## Multiple Accounts
+In summary, the most privacy-preserving way to use email is to avoid using email for anything except website sign ups. Ironic, isn't it? I just wrote paragraphs about the best way to use email and now I'm saying that you should avoid using it for most things. If you have the will, you can use a new email account for every site you sign up for to further enhance privacy. Using an email client will make it easier to manage so many accounts at the same time. You won't have to reenter all your passwords every time to check your emails. If you are signed up for lots of services, this could be impractical. You might consider using several email accounts for "categories" of services instead of a separate email account for every single service you sign up for. The benefit of this is you don't have all your eggs in one basket. If one of your email accounts gets compromised or snooped on, the others remain unaffected. Also keep in mind throwaway email services for one-off sending and receiving of emails.
+
+If and how you segregate out your email accounts is up to you. This is just an optional extra step you can take. Using multiple email accounts doesn't always make your emails more private or your accounts more secure. It just improves "unlinkability". A common example of this is having a personal email and a work email. Keeping your personal life and your work life separate is important for many people. You wouldn't want your workplace to know all the services you're signed up for and you wouldn't want to be receiving work emails on your personal email account.
+
+# Motivation
+Those are my tips for getting the most out of email. It's a lot of information to take in, but I wanted to be thorough. My motivation for writing this post as I said in the beginning was seeing the way most people use email. Until we have a widespread protocol that supercedes email, we should at least get the most out of it. And the way most people are using email right now is the absolute worst way to use it. There's a lot of things in computing that aren't harder to do a different way, it's just that people haven't been shown the better way of doing things. Most people don't know anything beyond webmail despite the fact that email predates the web. I wrote this post to promote my preferred way of using email. I hope you have found it useful.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321)
+[2: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29)
+[3: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Email_client](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Email_client)
+[5: https://protonmail.com](https://protonmail.com)
+[6: https://protonmail.com/bridge](https://protonmail.com/bridge)
+[7: https://www.thunderbird.net](https://www.thunderbird.net)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Evolution_(software)](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Evolution_(software))
+[9: http://www.mutt.org](http://www.mutt.org)
+[10: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook)
+[11: https://secushare.org/PGP](https://secushare.org/PGP)
diff --git a/content/post/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-1-order-and-purpose.md b/content/post/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-1-order-and-purpose.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e12bdad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-1-order-and-purpose.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Atheist Debates - Argument From Design, Part 1: Order and Purpose"
+date: 2021-01-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Matt Dillahunty[1] refutes the argument that a god must exist because the universe requires a designer.
+
+[Video Link][2]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty)
+[2: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=RTJS1UHIj6k&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=RTJS1UHIj6k&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-2-what-are-the-odds.md b/content/post/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-2-what-are-the-odds.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9fbc65c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-2-what-are-the-odds.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Atheist Debates - Argument From Design, Part 2: What Are the Odds?"
+date: 2021-01-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Matt Dillahunty[1] refutes the argument that natural explanations are improbable, so god must've created everything.
+
+[Video Link][2]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty)
+[2: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=fsw8VXAcHz4&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=fsw8VXAcHz4&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/video-atheist-debates-pascals-wager.md b/content/post/video-atheist-debates-pascals-wager.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8f25686
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-atheist-debates-pascals-wager.md
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Atheist Debates - Pascal's Wager"
+date: 2021-01-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Matt Dillahunty[1] thoroughly refutes Pascal's Wager. He mentions the idea of fractal wrongness[2] which means that a worldview is wrong at every scale of resolution. Many theistic arguments are fractally wrong, not just Pascal's Wager. But I'm really glad Matt brings it up in this video.
+
+[Video Link][3]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty)
+[2: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness)
+[3: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=YBCDGohZT70&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=YBCDGohZT70&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/video-atheist-debates-supernatural-causation.md b/content/post/video-atheist-debates-supernatural-causation.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d8abd03
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-atheist-debates-supernatural-causation.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Atheist Debates - Supernatural Causation"
+date: 2021-01-16T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Matt Dillahunty[1] discusses the difficulty of demonstrating the supernatural.
+
+[Video Link][2]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty)
+[2: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=AwG7LJTTZFc&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=AwG7LJTTZFc&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/video-car-surveillance-an-unregulated-privacy-disaster.md b/content/post/video-car-surveillance-an-unregulated-privacy-disaster.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a61a45f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-car-surveillance-an-unregulated-privacy-disaster.md
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Car Surveillance: an Unregulated Privacy Disaster"
+date: 2021-04-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+The Hated One[1] is at it again, this time exposing automobile surveillance. I wrote a post[2] back in December of 2020 exposing some of the ways auto makers are collecting your data and what you can do about it (hint: buy an old car!). I mostly talked about all the potential vectors for collection I could think of. In his video, The Hated One gives real-world examples and the implications of auto makers collecting so much data about people. I'm happy to see this issue getting increased attention lately by privacy advocates.
+
+Check out the video below to learn how your car is spying on you.
+
+[Video Link][3]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q)
+[2: /2020/12/16/avoiding-automobile-surveillance](../../../../2020/12/16/avoiding-automobile-surveillance/)
+[3: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=WX2SWUMt_fk&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=WX2SWUMt_fk&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/video-dont-talk-to-the-police.md b/content/post/video-dont-talk-to-the-police.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3643a92
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-dont-talk-to-the-police.md
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Don't Talk to the Police"
+date: 2021-03-01T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+American law professor at Regent University School of Law and former criminal defense attorney James Duane explains why you should never talk to police without an attorney present, especially if you're innocent.
+
+[Video Link][1]
+
+> "There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. That is not an exaggeration..." -- retired LSU Law Professor John Baker.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/video-fixing-social-media-for-good.md b/content/post/video-fixing-social-media-for-good.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..529acd0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-fixing-social-media-for-good.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Fixing Social Media for Good"
+date: 2021-01-14T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Recent events have brought the issue of social media censorship to the forefront:
+
+* Facebook bans Trump's account
+* Instagram bans Trump's account
+* Snapchat bans Trump's account
+* Twitch bans Trump's account
+* Twitter bans Trump's account
+* Amazon removes Parler from its cloud hosting service
+* Apple removes Parler from the App Store
+* Google removes Parler from the Play Store
+* Discord bans TheDonald.win server
+* Reddit bans r/DonaldTrump
+* Pinterest censors Trump related topics
+* Shopify removes Trump's merchandise from its platform
+* TikTok removes Trump's speeches
+* Youtube removes videos claiming widespread voter fraud
+
+No informed person is disputing that these are private companies and they have the legal right to do whatever they want (within the bounds of the law) with their platforms. The 1st amendment doesn't apply here. Nonetheless it's very alarming that voices coming from the political left are sympathetic to widespread censorship just because it's Trump. If it were someone within their own ranks being censored they would no doubt be making the same argument I'm going to make about the danger of censorship. Voices coming from the political right actually have a saner viewpoint on the censorship problem in the sense that they can actually recognize censorship as a social problem which Trump's situation has only highlighted.
+
+As amusing as it is seeing adult Eric Cartman's megaphone taken away, having a handful of big tech companies control who gets a voice and who doesn't is extremely dangerous. Once a platform is large enough it is a de facto public forum in the sense that it can be used by anyone to freely spread their ideas. Censorship on it in practice can be as damaging to freedom of speech as censoring a de jure public forum. The good coming from this censorship is people are waking up to the fact that big tech companies can and do censor whoever they want when it suits them. Signal Messenger[1] has even seen a huge increase[2] in downloads since the censorship imposed after the capitol riots. Uncensorable platforms are needed. Luke Smith[3] proposes federated[4] platforms as a permanent fix for the censorship issue:
+
+[Video Link][5]
+
+# Federation Versus Peer to Peer
+While federation is better than centralization, in practice federation tends toward centralization anyway. Email is federated but a few big providers (Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook, iCloud, Protonmail) control the market. Worse yet, all the big providers sell user data. But it's not just email. On the federated communication platform Matrix[6] users are still heavily concentrated on the default matrix.org homeserver. So it's not true that federation alone fixes social media for good. A peer-to-peer[7] social media platform could fix social media for good. But I'd still rather see everyone on The Fediverse[8] instead of the centralized social media platforms used today.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://signal.org](https://signal.org)
+[2: https://nitter.snopyta.org/elonmusk/status/1347165127036977153](https://nitter.snopyta.org/elonmusk/status/1347165127036977153)
+[3: https://yewtu.be/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA](https://yewtu.be/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29)
+[5: https://videos.lukesmith.xyz/videos/watch/0c256439-ec59-4e41-bd40-0ebeca751543?autoplay=1](https://videos.lukesmith.xyz/videos/watch/0c256439-ec59-4e41-bd40-0ebeca751543?autoplay=1)
+[6: https://www.matrix.org](https://www.matrix.org)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer)
+[8: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fediverse#Communication_protocols_used_in_the_fediverse](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Fediverse#Communication_protocols_used_in_the_fediverse)
diff --git a/content/post/video-is-your-keyboard-spying-on-you.md b/content/post/video-is-your-keyboard-spying-on-you.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3604e56
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-is-your-keyboard-spying-on-you.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Is Your Keyboard Spying on You?"
+date: 2021-03-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Your keyboard is one of the most important things to secure in desktop and mobile environments, yet it is often overlooked.
+
+# Mobile
+If you're on a mobile device, chances are you're using a "virtual" keyboard. A virtual keyboard is just an on-screen keyboard instead of a physical one. The problem is many available keyboards send your keystrokes to a remote server by default. Even the stock keyboard may do this. Even if you're using the secure messaging app Signal, some big company could still be collecting everything you type through your keyboard app. Watch TheHatedOne's video to find out how to secure your Android keyboard.
+
+[Video Link][1]
+
+The same advice goes for custom keyboards on iOS: If you're using a custom keyboard, use free software!
+
+# Desktop
+TheHatedOne does not mention physical keyboards. I have two pieces of advice for those:
+
+1. Do not use a wireless keyboard (or mouse).
+2. Do not use a programmable keyboard.
+
+## Wireless Keyboards
+The problem with wireless keyboards is in the name; they send keystrokes wirelessly to the USB receiver. It's often impossible to verify that wireless keyboards securely encrypt traffic. Even the keyboards with strong encryption are vulnerable to replay attacks which could be used to exploit the target machine. Even if a strong encrypted wireless keyboard is immune to replay attacks, it could be vulnerable to spoofing. Even with strong encryption, replay immunity and spoofing immunity, it's still possible to log the frequency and timing of keystrokes using statistical analysis to determine which keys are being pressed at which times. As a final very minor issue, if AES is ever broken you'll need a new keyboard.
+
+This isn't conjecture. Replay attacks and keystroke logging have already been demonstrated. It's best just to have a wired physical keyboard (and mouse) to avoid all these problems.
+
+## Programmable Keyboards
+The second concern is programmable keyboards. The problem with them is also in the name; they are programmable. If your computer can upgrade your keyboard firmware, then an attacker could embed viruses in your keyboard if your operating system is ever compromised. Then every time you reinstall your OS the virus could be reinstalled via your keyboard. If you have a fancy RGB keyboard controlled by drivers on your machine or you have G-series keyboard macros (G1, G2, G3, etc.) you might consider using a different keyboard that isn't programmable. You don't want a keylogger embedded into your keyboard itself. So just use a non-programmable keyboard and program macros inside the actual program where you want to use them. There's no reason I can think of that a keyboard would need to have embedded macros anyway. Just embed your macros in the program or OS configuration itself.
+
+# Conclusion
+For the vast majority of computer users, these measures should be enough to secure your keyboard.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vCRX0MZm2KI](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vCRX0MZm2KI)
diff --git a/content/post/video-monero-more-anonymous-than-cash.md b/content/post/video-monero-more-anonymous-than-cash.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..640520c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-monero-more-anonymous-than-cash.md
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Monero: More Anonymous Than Cash"
+date: 2021-03-18T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Bitcoin
+If Bitcoin were as anonymous as most people think it is then the government would be pressuring exchanges to delist it. But they're not. The IRS would be offering cash prizes to anyone who could reliably trace transactions. That's also not happening. You'd have the corporate media keeping quiet about it, not mentioning it and hoping it goes away. But the media won't shut up about Bitcoin.
+
+Why are the powers that be so friendly to Bitcoin?
+
+# Monero
+As it turns out, Bitcoin isn't as anonymous as people think. It's actually very easy for anyone to trace transactions. Monero is what people think Bitcoin is: an anonymous, untraceable digital currency. All those things are happening, just not to Bitcoin. Monero is getting delisted, the IRS is trying to trace it and it gets no mainstream media coverage. Big banks and financial institutions don't hate Bitcoin. They hate Monero.
+
+Watch The Hated One's video for a more detailed analysis of Monero:
+
+[Video Link][1]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=H33ggs7bh8M&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=H33ggs7bh8M&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/video-tiktok-a-trojan-horse-into-chinas-dystopia.md b/content/post/video-tiktok-a-trojan-horse-into-chinas-dystopia.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b0e2a09
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-tiktok-a-trojan-horse-into-chinas-dystopia.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] TikTok - a Trojan Horse into China's Dystopia"
+date: 2021-01-11T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+TikTok is a national security risk and yet people are still using it by the millions. President Trump signed an executive order[1] to ban TikTok by prohibiting United States citizens from doing business with the Chinese company ByteDance that owns TikTok. However the restrictions have been stalled in court since last August. At the time of the TikTok lawsuit[2] ByteDance claimed they had 100 million active users in the United States.
+
+The main concern in the executive order seems to be TikTok allows the CCP to collect Americans' personal information including federal employees and it can be used for disinformation and blackmail. But as TheHatedOne[3] points out, US-based social media platforms already do the same thing. Facecrook has collected personal user data way before TikTok was around and it has more than twice as many users today as TikTok did in August. A consequence of Facecrook's data collection is it enabled Cambridge analytica[4] to manipulate the US presidential election in 2016 and yet the Federal Trade Commission only fined Bookface $5 billion dollars. Bookface made $15 billion in just the first quarter of 2019. The fine was barely a slap on the wrist.
+
+The moral is if you're a US-based company that endangers national security through personal data collection and manipulation of public opinion through propoganda you get a slap on the wrist from the FTC while the NSA pats you on the back. If you're a Chinese-based company doing more or less the same you get an executive order banning you from doing business in the United States. And the 2 core issues of centralization of power and proprietary software of which the other issues are a symptom never even get so much as a mention in the mainstream media or the government.
+
+I recommend TheHatedOne's commentary on TikTok because he actually addresses the proprietariness and centralization of power in the case of TikTok. Have a listen.
+
+[Video Link][5]
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://web.archive.org/web/20210120145228id_/https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/](https://web.archive.org/web/20210120145228id_/https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/)
+[2: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/tiktok-files-lawsuit](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/tiktok-files-lawsuit)
+[3: https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q)
+[4: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal)
+[5: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=5UooWpC4yJs&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=5UooWpC4yJs&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
diff --git a/content/post/video-vengeance.md b/content/post/video-vengeance.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..123901d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-vengeance.md
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] Vengeance"
+date: 2020-12-29T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Darkmatter2525[1] explains punitive prison systems (5min 43sec - 11min 43sec).
+Click this link[2] to watch only the relevant part of the video.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://yewtu.be/channel/UCLhtZqdkjshgq8TqwIjMdCQ](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCLhtZqdkjshgq8TqwIjMdCQ)
+[2: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=LX2VeWumRQ8&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1&amp;start=343&amp;end=703](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=LX2VeWumRQ8&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1&amp;start=343&amp;end=703)
diff --git a/content/post/video-you-should-delete-your-whatsapp-asap.md b/content/post/video-you-should-delete-your-whatsapp-asap.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..be67050
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/video-you-should-delete-your-whatsapp-asap.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+title: "[Video] You Should Delete Your Whatsapp ASAP"
+date: 2021-02-07T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+TheHatedOne[1] tells us why no one should be using Whatsapp.
+
+[Video Link][2]
+
+# Matrix
+The only gripe I have about the video is the same one I had in Fixing Social Media for Good[3]. While Matrix[4] is federated[5] and infinitely better than Whatsapp, federation still tends toward centralization. Also Matrix doesn't protect metadata either and as TheHatedOne mentions, leaking metadata is really bad for a communications platform even if data is protected.
+
+# Signal
+Signal[6] says it protects metadata, but there's no way for users to verify that besides taking Signal's word for it and Signal is centralized. So neither Signal nor Matrix are the final solution to secure communications.
+
+# Cwtch
+Peer to peer[7] is the best solution because there's no way for it to tend towards centralization. Once cwtch.im[8] (Cwtch is Welsh for hug/cuddle) is stable it will probably be the best peer to peer instant messaging solution since it can verifiably protect metadata and have encrypted group conversations. It's also built on Tor[9] which is the most tested, most researched and most used anonymity network out there.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q)
+[2: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=shpiVm1qpnw&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=shpiVm1qpnw&amp;dark_mode=true&amp;autoplay=1)
+[3: /2021/01/14/video-fixing-social-media-for-good](../../../../2021/01/14/video-fixing-social-media-for-good/)
+[4: https://matrix.org/](https://matrix.org/)
+[5: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29)
+[6: https://www.signal.org/](https://www.signal.org/)
+[7: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer)
+[8: https://cwtch.im/](https://cwtch.im/)
+[9: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29)
diff --git a/content/post/warning-to-monero-users.md b/content/post/warning-to-monero-users.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c173d63
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/warning-to-monero-users.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: "Warning to Monero Users"
+date: 2021-12-13T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Obligatory
+I don't support the use of Monero or other proof of work cryptocurrencies since they're destroying the planet.[1] However, I know people are going to use Monero anyways. So it makes sense to give this warning.
+
+# Practical Statistical Attack on Monero
+There's a practical statistical attack on Monero related to its decoy selection algorithm.[2] Work to resolve the issue is in progress. It's not clear how severe this vulnerability is, but Monero's adversaries (DEA, FBI, IRS, NSA) may already be using it.
+
+It might not be safe any more to rely on Monero for your freedom. If you still must use Monero, use non-KYC exchanges, different addresses for every transaction, and make sure your addresses never get linked to your real-world identity.
+
+# Defense in Depth
+None of us knows how soon Shor-capable quantum computers will be built. But when they are built, Monero's privacy may be under threat yet again.
+
+So just be aware that Monero isn't perfect and it may not protect you forever. The Monero blockchain is public. So when the cryptography is broken or there's a bug in the client software[3], your transactions have nowhere to hide. Shor-capable quantum computing may not come to pass, but just be aware that breaks in security happen.
+
+You can practice defense in depth by treating Monero as if it's as transparent as Bitcoin. Then when there is a break in Monero's privacy, you can rest easy knowing you thought ahead.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Avoid Using Cryptocurrency](../../../../2021/07/18/avoid-using-cryptocurrency/)
+[2: OSPEAD - Fortifying Monero Against Statistical Attack](https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/Rucknium-OSPEAD-Fortifying-Monero-Against-Statistical-Attack.html)
+[3: Monero Bug Impacts Privacy](https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/7807)
diff --git a/content/post/website-visualizing-wealth-inequality-and-mass-incarceration.md b/content/post/website-visualizing-wealth-inequality-and-mass-incarceration.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..edc828c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/website-visualizing-wealth-inequality-and-mass-incarceration.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "[Website] Visualizing Wealth Inequality And Mass Incarceration"
+date: 2022-03-05T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+When we're talking about systemic issues, we're talking about large numbers. Yet our ability to imagine large numbers of things is extremely limited. So our brains can't comprehend the scale of systemic issues. This causes us to be indifferent towards the suffering of large numbers of people. It's called mass numbing. The following quote eloquently captures the problem:
+
+> "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
+
+Yesterday, I came across two websites that help combat mass numbing. One is about wealth inequality[1] and the other addresses mass incarceration[2]. Both are U.S.-centric. Their data is slightly outdated, but they do a good job in pointing out the problems in an understandable way. I found both sites entertaining, informative, and moving. Please share them.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: 1 Pixel Wealth](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/)
+[2: Mass Incarceration](https://mkorostoff.github.io/incarceration-in-real-numbers/)
diff --git a/content/post/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone.md b/content/post/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..17bc343
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone.md
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+title: "Why I Don't Have a Smartphone"
+date: 2021-12-26T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Phonelessness
+I don't carry a smartphone. Not even a dumb phone. Most people assume I'm too poor to afford a phone plan. Not true. I voluntarily live without a phone. Technically I do own smartphones, but I don't use them.
+
+For most people in the civilized and semi-civilized world, phonelessness seems impractical. It's hard to speak in general about the consequences of not carrying one since everybody uses them in different ways depending on their location and life role. The consequences range from a life of hardship to being happier and less distracted.
+
+# Reasons I Don't Use a Smartphone
+I find myself on the far end of that range being happier and less distracted. For me, phonelessness isn't a burden most of the time. It's a relief. So let's talk about why I choose to live without a phone, since non-poor phoneless people are an extreme minority.
+
+## Smartphones Are Addictive and Distracting
+The last smartphone I used was a Google Pixel running GrapheneOS. It had a SIM card, but was in airplane mode unless I was making a call. It was always on silent with no vibration. Unless I deliberately pulled it out, it couldn't interrupt my day.
+
+It was still tempting though. If I didn't have anything to do for 5 minutes, what better opportunity to pull out my phone? Upwards of 90% of what I read and watched on it was irrelevant and 70% of it I'd forget by the next day. But it was something to do, a source of constant stimulation, always available when I wanted it.
+
+It was just too much. I was sitting at a dinner party talking with people and it was fun, but not as fun in every moment as the internet. On the internet, there's limitless entertainment, endless intellectual stimulation from the world's greatest minds, more creative artwork than I'll ever personally encounter, and models which make real people pale in comparison.
+
+So there was always this strong temptation to pull out my smartphone and browse the internet rather than engage with the real people sitting in front of me. It's not like digital media didn't cause problems before smartphones, but I can't bring a TV or PC to a dinner party and the environment is too distracting for a book.
+
+A smartphone is small enough to bring everywhere and for some strange reason, it's more socially acceptable to pull out one's smartphone at the dinner table than it is to open a book. It's the ultimate distraction.
+
+One of the first things I noticed when I gave up my smartphone was that other people are hopelessly addicted to them. It's frustrating trying to connect with people who are always on their phones. I can seldom get through a shared meal without others checking their phone several times, as if it were more important than the people sitting around them.
+
+Sometimes the consequences of incessant smartphone checking are deadly. Millions of crashes happen every year because of texting while driving. I can't imagine what's so urgent for so many people that there's no time to pull over.
+
+So one good thing about phonelessness is I live without the temptation to use a phone at inappropriate times. I'm more aware of what's happening around me and more connected to others. When nothing interesting is happening, instead of mindlessly scrolling on my phone half paying attention just to keep up the dopamine levels, I can take that moment to appreciate my life and be mindful.
+
+## Smartphones Fuel Toxic Always-Online Culture
+Another reason I don't have a smartphone is it creates the expectation to be available all the time. Always-online culture spoils employers. They expect employees to always be connected, creating a toxic work culture where 'me time' is provisional. It ends the moment you get that call or text from the boss. For firefighters, it makes sense. But that expectation now applies to all jobs and it's totally unnecessary.
+
+In my personal relationships it's practical not to be constantly connected. I can imagine lifestyles where it isn't practical, but I suspect it's more practical than people realize, especially for those without dependents. In life, there's very little that can't wait.
+
+Lots of people don't really need a mobile phone and definitely not a smartphone. For many, a home phone would suffice. While it might be somewhat inconvenient not to have a smartphone, some of that inconvenience is because people intentionally organize their lives around their smartphone. Some reorganization would solve that.
+
+## Smartphones Don't Respect User Freedom
+Yet another reason not to have a smartphone is they don't fully respect user freedom. My Google Pixel had a nonfree Goolag bootloader. It was very off-putting every time I saw the Google logo show up on boot, knowing the bootloader was nonfree and couldn't be replaced. The fact that GrapheneOS only supports devices with a nonfree bootloader written by a spooky company diminishes the good of it.
+
+I could go the Replicant route[1]. But none of Replicant's fully supported devices have free bootloaders.
+
+## The Linux Smartphone App Ecosystem Isn't Mature Enough
+The more recent Linux smartphones are sufficiently free. I actually own a PinePhone. Its nonfree modem is isolated from the SoC and main memory. It has hardware kill switches for the few closed subsystems that require non-free blobs. So the problem there isn't freedom.
+
+The problem with the PinePhone and other Linux smartphones is, despite impressive recent development, their application ecosystems are insufficient for me. They don't support the applications I use.
+
+## I Can Get By Without One
+Sometimes I have to place calls for doctor's visits and set other appointments. For that I use someone else's phone. It makes no sense for me to shell out money to the phone companies for a plan when I rarely make calls and my family and friends let me borrow their phones when I do need to make a call.
+
+Even if I didn't have a phone to borrow, I could use the PinePhone as a home phone. Unless I was expecting an important call, it wouldn't even need to be powered on. Changes in appointments would just go to voicemail which can be checked asynchronously. I could still live distraction-free and wouldn't need to carry it with me.
+
+# Non-Reasons
+Regular readers of this journal are probably wondering when I'm going to mention privacy. It's widely understood that smartphones are tracking and surveillance devices, so surely that's another objection, right?
+
+## Smartphones Are Surveillance Devices
+Well actually no. It's possible to have a smartphone that isn't a mass surveillance device. When I had the Google Pixel, I enabled airplane mode and MAC randomization. I used free software from Fdroid exclusively. Traffic was onion-routed via Tor. Bluetooth was disabled and wifi as well when I wasn't using it. I taped both front and rear cameras.[2] So privacy wasn't an issue for me.
+
+The average person's smartphone is a surveillance device with dozens of proprietary apps tracking them every which way and a crippled, vendor-locked excuse for the latest version of Android. As for iPhones, there's no excuse for having that trash. They're even worse for your freedom than vendor-locked Androids. 
+
+Non-techies don't know how to protect themselves from mass surveillance, so surveillance still counts as a reason for others not to have a phone.
+
+# On The Benefits of Having a Smartphone
+While I'm talking about all the bad things about smartphones, don't think I'm oblivious to all the good things. I've had a smartphone for most of my life. I know the good. They make irreplaceable multitools. You can quickly contact others. If you ignore all the bad, smartphones augment human beings.
+
+Is there some way we can have the good without the bad?
+
+# Can We Have The Good Without The Bad?
+The vast majority have nonfree surveillance phones dependent on big tech. This can be remedied by using free software.
+
+Solving smartphone addiction isn't as straightforward. While plenty of people can use their smartphones without becoming addicted, staggering numbers of people still self-report as being addicted. Young people are highly addicted to their smartphones, unable to have simple get togethers with friends and family without staring at their screens.
+
+Given all the kids addicted to smartphones and tablets, I'm not hopeful young people can use them without developing an addiction. So I'm not sure whether we can have the good without the bad. Maybe a new, non-addictive mobile operating system would help. Or maybe new technology isn't the solution.
+
+In my own experience using a smartphone without social media or notifications, I still wasted time on it with passive entertainment rather than doing other things I would've liked to do. For me, if it's capable of web browsing, it's too distracting. I'm better off without one.
+
+That's why I don't have a smartphone.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: Smartphone Recommendations](https://www.replicant.us/freedom-privacy-security-issues.php#recommendations)
+[2: Cover Your Cameras](../../../../2021/04/07/cover-your-cameras/)
diff --git a/content/post/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md b/content/post/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2da1aa7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+---
+title: "Why I Don't Trust Police and Neither Should You"
+date: 2021-10-11T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+This writing only applies to cops in the United States. In other countries, the police culture may be better (or worse).
+
+# Why I Don't Trust Police
+I've had a police officer yell in my face after refusing to provide him my phone number. I was being completely calm and respectful. I don't even normally carry a phone. Phones are addictive, distracting surveillance devices with non-free bootloaders, non-free modem operating systems and proprietary hardware. But that wasn't any of his business. The same cop handcuffed me behind my back for no reason, then tried to bully and intimidate me by threatening a misdemeanor charge over a fender bender where nobody was hurt and I wasn't even driving.
+
+He then pretended to be my friend saying we got off on the wrong foot and lectured me about giving information to the police. I just agreed with him so he would leave me alone and because there was nothing to gain out of challenging him. After that, he reminded me how well-liked he was. This could've just been him boasting or a veiled threat. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was boasting.
+
+Besides that instance, I've caught cops in outright lies before. Cops have put words in my mouth and twisted what I've said. I've witnessed cops misrepresent reality numerous times to extract information from people. They've harassed people I know and put undue stress on their families. They obtained a no-knock warrant to bust down the door of someone I know looking for someone else that didn't even live there. Then they refused to repair the damage to the door and never apologized for it. Every time I've personally seen or heard someone report an incident to the police, the police either couldn't help or didn't care to. And finally, in every encounter with a police officer, even if I'm just walking in the park, I feel like I'm being treated as a potential criminal. Every conversation feels like an interrogation, like I'm always under suspicion. So those are my personal reasons for not trusting police.
+
+# Why You Shouldn't Trust Police
+Here's a non-comprehensive list of 20 reasons you shouldn't trust police either (in no particular order):
+
+* Police defend each others' bad behavior, almost without exception. The ones who don't end up getting fired or worse.[1]
+* Police plant evidence.[2]
+* Police union contracts arbitrarily restrict investigating officer misconduct.[3]
+* 72% of police agree poorly performing officers are not held accountable for their actions.[4]
+* More than half of police say their job has made them more callous.[4]
+* Police steal more from the innocent than do thieves.[5]
+* Police mistake everyday objects for guns.[6]
+* Police can search your home without your knowledge or consent if they suspect terrorism. You can be put on a terror watchlist for almost anything and it's nearly impossible to clear your name.[7]
+* Instead of listening to protestors calling for police reform, police instead promote the myth that there's a "war on police".[8]
+* Local police departments use powerful surveillance technology to invade your privacy without a warrant.[9][10]
+* Police lying on the witness stand is so rampant it has a name: "testilying"[11]
+* Police training is severely inadequate. They receive less hours of training than barbers.[12]
+* Police can and will lie to you, especially if you're ignorant of the law. But if you lie to them, you'll be arrested.[13]
+* Police have spent 40 years blowing trillions of dollars ruining people's lives over drugs and causing the prison population to explode. All the while drug use rates have remained constant.[14]
+* Police have been lying to children about drugs since the early 80's. The D.A.R.E. program even encourages children to snitch on their parents.[15]
+* Police infringe upon citizens' freedom to explore their own consciousness through psychedelics.[16]
+* Two 1990's studies showed police commit domestic violence at significantly higher rates than the national average. The stats may have changed since, but it's still cause for concern.[17]
+* Police officers launder evidence through illegal government surveillance to fight the failed war on drugs.[18]
+* Police departments partner with scAmazon's corporate mass surveillance network to circumvent your 4th amendment rights.[19]
+* America has a long history of racist policing.[20]
+
+# Rethinking the Role of Policing in Society
+I do believe in the institution of policing. But in practice, perverse incentives lead to a toxic police culture and a society where people (rightfully) do not trust the police. We need major police reform here in America. Perhaps I'll explore possible solutions in a future journal entry.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: The Price a Cop Paid for Crossing the Blue Line](https://www.theroot.com/the-price-a-cop-paid-for-crossing-the-blue-line-1790858428)
+[2: Shooting of Kathryn Johnston](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Johnston)
+[3: Police Union Contracts](https://www.checkthepolice.org/)
+[4: Pew Research: Behind the Badge](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/01/11/behind-the-badge/#fn-22351-1)
+[5: Civil Asset Forfeiture](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=ZWvh8Ttd9eA)
+[6: The Awful Truth: Don't Shoot, It's Only a Wallet](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=sP7f96dE6Pg)
+[7: Militarization of Police](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#United_States)
+[8: Bogus "War on Police"](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#Allegations_of_a_%22war_on_police%22)
+[9: Police Surveillance Technology](https://www.eff.org/issues/street-level-surveillance)
+[10: Stop the Police Surveillance State](https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/stop-the-police-surveillance-state-too/)
+[11: Lying is a Fundamental Part of American Police Culture](https://truthout.org/articles/lying-is-a-fundamental-part-of-american-police-culture/)
+[12: The Problem With Police Training in the US](https://reflector.uindy.edu/2020/10/07/the-problem-with-police-training-in-the-u-s/)
+[13: Ways Police Can Lie to You](https://www.snyderlawyer.com/blog/ways-police-can-lie-to-you/)
+[14: The War on Drugs](https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/war-drugs)
+[15: D.A.R.E. Use of Children as Informants](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Use_of_children_as_informants)
+[16: Legalize Psychedelics](https://legalizepsychedelics.com/)
+[17: Do 40% of Police Families Experience Domestic Violence?](https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/)
+[18: Parallel Construction](https://archive.org/details/ParallelReconstruction)
+[19: Cancel Ring](https://www.cancelring.com/)
+[20: What 100 Years of History Tells Us About Racism in Policing](https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/what-100-years-of-history-tells-us-about-racism-in-policing/)
diff --git a/content/post/why-i-dont-use-a-pseudonym.md b/content/post/why-i-dont-use-a-pseudonym.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7e7276d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/why-i-dont-use-a-pseudonym.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "Why I Don't Use a Pseudonym"
+date: 2022-02-28T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Why don't I use a pseudonym on this journal? Well, I live in the United States and despite all the problems my country has, it's still a relatively free country with respect to speech, for now.
+
+There are limits to freedom of speech, some which I despise, but I don't overstep those boundaries on this journal. Many of my journal entries even pass for political speech, which is especially protected. Nothing on this journal can reasonably be considered hate speech. But even then it would still be protected by law.
+
+Of course this doesn't mean I'm in the clear. If voting rights legislation isn't passed and U.S. democracy falls to fascism, this journal could condemn me under the new regime. Even if that doesn't happen, the U.S. government and powerful corporations have countless ways to ruin the lives of people who rock the consumer capitalist boat.
+
+After the death of John McAfee[1], a British American programmer and tax dodger, the mainstream media largely reported it as a suicide despite strong reasons for doubt. Rob Braxman[2], a popular internet privacy guy, was discussing McAfee's death and if my memory is accurate, he also mentioned worrying about being suicided for teaching people how to have privacy online.
+
+Now I think that's obviously a very unlikely thing to happen, but it's not a crazy thing to say. If you don't believe things like that happen, you're just not paying attention. Look at the case of the journalist Julian Assange[3]. The FBI tried to frame him for hacking by granting legal immunity to his source Sigurdur Thordarson if he agreed to testily against Assange. There have been numerous other attempts to deface Assange's character as well.
+
+Jacob Appelbaum[4], an independent American journalist, security researcher, and anarchist who previously worked on the Tor project was politically persecuted by the U.S. government to the point of fleeing to Germany. Officials seized his laptop and phones at the border. People who work in the U.S. as journalists do get harassed, selectively policed, and arrested. Serious journalists in the U.S. who say they don't worry about safety are either lying or naive.
+
+Writing this journal doesn't make me a journalist. I'm more like a commentator. But as a dissident and activist, I expect to be targeted. However I don't think I'm interesting enough to worry about what happened to Assange and Appelbaum happening to me. The government has bigger fish to fry.
+
+On my journal, I advocate ideas that challenge mainstream consumer culture. I do not self-censor. However I am careful how I say things so they can't easily be taken out of context by law enforcement. Yet I don't feel so restricted by having my name attached to what I say that I desire a pseudonym.
+
+While I have considered using an anonymous pseudonym to reduce my public exposure, it would mean I can't take credit for my entries and some of my entries have gotten me job offers.
+
+Online anonymity is a house of cards. You have to completely dissociate everything you do between identities. Making a single mistake can ruin your anonymity forever and everything you've said and done can be retroactively attributed to you. If you want to be serious about anonymity, you even have to change the wording of your sentences to avoid linguistic analysis.
+
+Maintaining an anonymous identity for a long period of time takes a lot of mental bookkeeping. You will eventually make a mistake. For me, I would have to run two blogs: one tied to my real name and one pseudonymous. It would be very challenging because the way I express certain ideas here is itself attributable to me by anyone who knows me.
+
+I also benefit from racial and gender bias. I'm a white guy and within the ranks of U.S. law enforcement, there are underlying sympathies to white supremicists, as well as far-right ideologies and hate groups. It's hard to be a leftist cop because leftists are opposed to the War on Drugs. It's like being a vegan butcher. So naturally, law enforcement has a right-wing bias.
+
+If I were a middle eastern male dissident writing what I do, I'd be a lot more concerned about my safety than I am as a privileged white dude. But no matter what your race is, you should exercise your rights. Because if you don't, you will lose them. It's vital that people use their rights to speak their mind under their real name and not just an anonymous pseudonym that has no skin in the game.
+
+The approach of trying not drawing attention to oneself, never rocking the boat, and never advocating unpopular opinions is unsustainable long term. You should never submit to oppression, except as a strategy for later overcoming it.
+
+Every time you appease an oppressor, you dig yourself deeper into a hole. The oppressor just sees you as weak, someone they can easily control through fear and they will oppress you more if you let them. I feel that by using a pseudonym, I'm saying I'm afraid to share what's really on my mind. To hell with that.
+
+I'm going to write what's on my mind and if someone doesn't like it then too bad. I respect people who use pseudonyms, but I'd rather take the risk of saying what I believe as myself. Every time I assert my right to say what I think, I make it easier for others. I can't have that effect hiding behind a pseudonym.
+
+That's why I don't use a pseudonym.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: John McAfee](https://wikiless.org/wiki/John_McAfee)
+[2: Rob Braxman](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCYVU6rModlGxvJbszCclGGw)
+[3: Julian Assange](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Julian_Assange)
+[4: Jacob Appelbaum](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum)
diff --git a/content/post/why-i-left-its.md b/content/post/why-i-left-its.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..79be930
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/why-i-left-its.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Why I Left ITS"
+date: 2020-07-02T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+# Background
+In October of 2018, I was hired to work at information technology services at SIUe[1], where I also studied. I worked there until early this year. I worked part time and met many good people there and learned how the university works and is organized. The job was well-suited for students because we usually have some free time to do our studies. I worked at the help desk[2] answering calls for a while before I eventually moved to a labs and classrooms technician position. The duties of the labs and classrooms student workers were essentially to do anything technology-related that needed done in the labs and classrooms. This included taking inventory for all the items, imaging computers, assisting professors and students if something broke during class time, setting up projectors, conference areas, replacing hardware, and responding to support calls. It was a good first job for learning common workplace skills.
+
+# Learning About Free Software
+Everyone that is passionate about free/libre software has a story. Most students and teachers working with computers have never even heard about free software, even in computer science courses. It's one of the biggest social issues people are completely ignorant about. Part of that is because the ideas are misunderstood because "open source" has replaced free software in the classroom and workplace. Another reason is programmers don't get into programming because they want to grapple with the ethical implications of computing. What I'm saying is the kind of person who studies programming oftentimes is uninterested in ethics. Obviously this isn't true for every programmer out there, but the point I'm making is this: If you have any values at all, everything you do either moves you closer to your values, farther away from them, or is neutral. Whether you like it or not, this implies an ethical dimension to everything, including computing.
+
+When I took my job at ITS, I had never heard about free software. I still used GNU/Linux though. And I had heard of open source at the time. I knew who Linus Torvalds was, but had never heard of Richard Stallman until one day at the help desk my coworker told me about a disagreement between Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. I wasn't given any details besides that. We probably got on the subject after talking about Linus or Linux. Anyway, this piqued my interest. So when I returned home that day, I researched about it and found the Free Software Foundation. I remembered watching a Computerphile video about free software months prior, but the ideas didn't stick. I only completely understood after watching some of Richard Stallman's lectures. After listening to Stallman explain free software from the ground up and seeing examples of how proprietary software is used to mistreat users, and my own past experiences, his ideas about how computing should be rang true for me. Stallman's ideas gave me a whole new model to understand software. Everything came together and past experiences with proprietary software suddenly made more sense. I acquired an ethical framework for computing overnight.
+
+# Reduced Hours
+Adjusting to my new understanding of free software was a gradual, effortful process. Over the course of several months, I slowly stopped using proprietary applications I had been using and moved over to free software instead. Nearly 100% of my job was working with proprietary software though. If I had refused to use proprietary Windows or fix Windows machines at my job, I would most certainly have been let go for refusing to do the work. The whole university IT department wasn't going to change the way they did things because I didn't want to use the proprietary software. In my personal life, I was using almost exclusively free software. I was struggling very hard to do so in my classes and to promote free software. Yet at my job, I was being completely inconsistent. I was going around all day working on and fixing Windows machines. I was supporting proprietary software on university computers, sometimes imaging entire classrooms of 30 computers with Windows. I knew that Windows was an evil platform, and I was installing it. Every week I went in to work, I became increasingly bothered by what I was participating in while trying to advocate for the opposite outside of work. Outside of ITS, avoiding proprietary software while completing my coursework took up so much of my time. I was falling behind on assignments, so I asked for reduced hours at ITS.
+
+# Quitting
+I found that even with reduced hours, I could not get all my work done. I was already extremely demotivated from jumping through hoops no other students had to jump through emailing professors back and forth to avoid the proprietary software my courses were pushing on me while still trying to complete assignments. But I also had the feeling that I couldn't go on every day supporting Windows machines and Microsoft software. It wasn't just Windows either. There were multiple proprietary systems that we had to interact with. It started really getting to me. It did take a long time, but eventually I couldn't avoid the feeling that I was doing a harm to the world. I gave my 2 weeks notice and then resigned from my position at ITS in early 2020. The larger reason I resigned was due to the proprietary software. But a smaller part of it was that I needed more time to focus on studies. So it wasn't a decision based purely on ethics.
+
+Some readers are going to think resigning (partially) over ethical reasons was a mistake because some other student would just take my place and the job would be done anyway. But I don't find that convincing. For one, even if someone else took my place, at least it wouldn't be me. Leave someone else to cross that line. It's too psychologically burdensome for me to work with proprietary software knowing I'm doing the world a harm. It's likely that whoever would take my place would not know about free software and would not feel so bothered by the work they are doing because of that. Also, this kind of thinking is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone thinks this way, then everyone will reason that they should just accept the injustice because someone else will if they don't. That's a good way of keeping giant evil corporations like Microsoft in power. Microsoft prefers you to think that way. I'm not saying it's necessarily untrue. Maybe someone has already taken my place. But I'm saying to keep in mind that it's self-fulfilling. That kind of thinking is exactly the kind that discourages challenging existing power structures.
+
+Another objection readers might have to me leaving my job over free software is that even if I find another job where I don't have to use any proprietary software, I might be contributing to other social harms. In other words, it's hard to find a place to work that is without ethical problems. I can't deny this is true. Some people work at jobs where they have to use Windows, but they have kids to take care of. If they don't go in to work, they might not be able to support their family. I'm not trying to suggest everyone should do what I did. I'm definitely not trying to take the moral high ground compared to those people. I'm just explaining why I did what I did. But there are less "nuclear" options for people who can't quit their job. Spread the word about free software to friends, family, and coworkers. Set an example for others by being a mindful consumer. For example, don't buy home assistants with proprietary software such as the Amazon Alexa or Google Home. Don't buy "smart" devices like smart tv's, smart fridges, smart lightbulbs, etc. These are small sacrifices consumers can make right now. With collective effort, we can create a large market for ethical tech and eliminate the market for unethical tech if only enough of us refuse to buy it. If the relatively small sacrifices aren't made now, the sacrifices required in the future to turn the tide will be much, much greater. Living without proprietary software is already far more inconvenient than most people will accept. And it's only going to get worse unless we reject proprietary products today.
+
+That was my short call to action. If you've made it this far, thank you for reading. If you find my ideas valuable, then please consider making a donation. Details are on my about page[3].
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://www.siue.edu/its](https://www.siue.edu/its)
+[2: https://www.siue.edu/its/helpdesk](https://www.siue.edu/its/helpdesk)
+[3: /about](../../../../about/)
diff --git a/content/post/why-superman-isnt-brave.md b/content/post/why-superman-isnt-brave.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..853035c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/why-superman-isnt-brave.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "Why Superman Isn't Brave"
+date: 2020-11-26T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+Superman is the most iconic comic book superhero in the world. He represents moral goodness and justice. He is loved by millions. But he isn't brave. In fact, he can't be brave. To understand why, let's start by enumerating his superpowers:
+
+1. Superhuman strength, intelligence, speed, hearing and vision
+2. Ability to fly
+3. Instant healing
+4. X-ray vision
+5. Heat vision
+6. Eidetic memory
+7. Ice breath
+8. Fire breath
+9. Telepathy and more...
+
+He has dozens more superpowers, but you get the idea. He's basically a living god. He knows he'll win every battle in advance. He need not fear his opponents. If anything doesn't go his way, he can just reverse the earth's rotation to turn back time. The only internal struggle he has to worry about is finding out who the bad guys are and deciding if he should intervene or not. That's why Superman isn't brave. Vulnerability is necessary for bravery, and Superman can't be vulnerable.
+
+Real bravery is many things. It's having the moral strength to face danger, fear and adversity despite not knowing how things will work out. Bravery is taking the road less traveled instead of the beaten path. It is marching to the beat of your own drummer, refusing to conform to society's standards. It is confronting your worst fears. It is doing the right thing when others turn a blind eye. Bravery is staying true to yourself in tough circumstances. It goes hand in hand with fear and uncertainty. Bravery isn't easy, but it is contagious.
+
+We all have our own personal struggles. Then there are struggles we share in common with everyone else. We all get sick. We grow old and frail and eventually we die. We aren't guaranteed of a good outcome in life. We face a universe that is indifferent to our existence. There's a real possibility that our species could destroy itself, forever extinguishing the only source of intelligent life we know of. But confronting that reality isn't something we do by choice. Even for people that seem to ignore reality, it's still there in the very back of their mind, often expressing itself in indirect ways. As such, facing reality isn't usually seen as bravery since we have no other option.
+
+But, I want to give you something to consider: If you look at people who have acted bravely in the name of justice or good, they often did so because they couldn't continue any other way. Their psychic reality more or less forced them into bravery. Look at Edward Snowden[1] for example. In case you didn't know, he put his life and freedom at risk to tell the American people that our government is illegally spying on all of us. Here is what he said:
+
+> "If I had just wanted to harm the US? You could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention. I think for anyone making that argument they need to think, if they were in my position and you live a privileged life, you're living in Hawaii, in paradise, and making a ton of money, 'What would it take you to leave everything behind?'"
+
+You can tell he felt an obligation toward his country and that obligation, for him, outweighed his own life. He wasn't trying to be brave in leaking classified documents. He simply found himself in a situation where his conscience wouldn't let him ignore the injustice of mass surveillance any longer. With Snowden, 2 things are clear. Number 1 is he felt that something wrong was going on in government and he couldn't stand idly by. Number 2 is he felt that he couldn't walk away from it because if he didn't speak up, no one else would. Combine those 2 factors and you see he was basically forced into whistleblowing. Just because you are forced into a difficult situation, that doesn't mean enduring it isn't brave or noble.
+
+When I decided to drop my university classes in order to keep my computing freedom[2], I found myself in a similar situation to Snowden, albeit with less extreme consequences. I felt there was an injustice being done in the university that I couldn't ignore. And there was no way for me to challenge the proprietary software from within the university. I had exhausted my available options, so I was forced into dropping classes. It only felt right to make a strong statement about why I left which is why this blog even exists. Voices outside of the free software community and even a few within it told me I was making a big mistake. I still stand by that decision today because I realized that if I didn't do what I had done, nobody else would. Student groups at my university had already tried unsuccessfully to get professors to use different software. Through my efforts, I made the issue of free software known to many students and professors, got the department chair to mention the ethical concerns during class, gained informative experiences, started this blog, inspired members of the FSF[3] and hopefully showed other students fighting for computing freedom in education that they are not alone.
+
+You don't need to go full martyr like Snowden or sacrifice as much as I did to be brave. Some would say what I did was foolish, not brave. But the point is bravery can be any situation where you are vulnerable, but you persist anyway. It can be conquering a phobia, trying new things, putting yourself out there, or facing difficult tasks head on. Acting in spite of your fear is what bravery feels like. Try being brave even for 30 seconds per day. Don't overwhelm yourself, but do something where you don't know what the outcome will be. If you do that enough times, you'll gain confidence in uncertain situations and it might just change your life.
+
+
+Link(s):
+[1: https://wikiless.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden)
+[2: https://www.fsf.org/philosophy](https://www.fsf.org/philosophy)
+[3: https://www.fsf.org/](https://www.fsf.org/)
diff --git a/content/post/you-dont-need-an-antivirus.md b/content/post/you-dont-need-an-antivirus.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0f821e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/post/you-dont-need-an-antivirus.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+title: "You Don't Need An Antivirus"
+date: 2022-01-09T00:00:00
+draft: false
+---
+This entry is in response to recent news of Norton Antivirus putting a cryptominer[1] in their program. This is such a dumb move in so many ways it requires its own entry. Others have already commented on it, so I'd rather just tell you why you don't need an antivirus in the first place.
+
+Most commercial antiviruses are targeted towards Windows users. News flash. If you're using Windows, you already have known malware installed on your computer. It's called Windows and no antivirus program can remove it. Same for Macs as well. You should remove Windows or Mac and install a free Linux or BSD distro.
+
+If you still decide to use Windows or Mac, realize you don't actually need an antivirus anyways. Windows and Mac already come with built-in protections against 3rd-party malware. Of course both systems still let their own malware execute.
+
+Most proprietary antivirus programs are themselves adware and spyware. And now Norton has a cryptominer. Installing proprietary antivirus software these days is just paying to install malware on your own system. Don't fall for it.
+
+So how should you avoid malware? Here's a list:
+
+* Do use a free Linux or BSD distro (most viruses target windows)
+* Do keep your software updated
+* Do make frequent backups
+* Do install software exclusively from your package manager (unless you know what you're doing)
+* Do uninstall software you don't use
+* Do lock your computer when it's unattended
+* Do ignore Indian guys calling about your computer
+* Don't use proprietary software
+* Don't let untrustworthy people use your computer
+* Don't click untrusted links
+* Don't open sketchy email attachments
+* Don't visit shady websites
+
+If using an antivirus makes you feel more secure, I recommend ClamAV[2]. It's free software and not adware/spyware trash like proprietary antiviruses.
+
+Be aware though that some people consider having an antivirus more risky than not having one since they require root access, which could open up new security vulnerabilities. You have to make that call yourself.
+
+Either way, antiviruses aren't necessary. Don't listen to the marketing telling you you must have an antivirus. You're fine without one. Just use common sense.
+
+
+[1: Norton Cryptominer](https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v138388461)
+[2: ClamAV](https://www.clamav.net)