Repair broken links

7 files changed, 11 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/content/entry/documentary-sicko.md b/content/entry/documentary-sicko.md
index 41c280a..0fa8732 100644
--- a/content/entry/documentary-sicko.md
+++ b/content/entry/documentary-sicko.md
@@ -19,6 +19,6 @@ Every other major country on earth guarantees healthcare access to every citizen
 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](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko#Response). 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](https://michaelmoore.com/movies/sicko/)
+[Documentary Link](https://web.archive.org/web/20210125092526if_/https://michaelmoore.com/movies/sicko/)
 
 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](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act) (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.
diff --git a/content/entry/icannot-be-trusted.md b/content/entry/icannot-be-trusted.md
index 7ceaea3..b64d630 100644
--- a/content/entry/icannot-be-trusted.md
+++ b/content/entry/icannot-be-trusted.md
@@ -4,19 +4,19 @@ date: 2022-09-07T00:00:01
 draft: false
 ---
 ## ICANN
-The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, also known as [ICANN](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN), is a U.S. nonprofit which manages the [DNS](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System) root servers. When you type "nicksphere.ch" into your search bar and hit enter, ICANN is ultimately in control over what happens next, not me.
+The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, also known as [ICANN](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN), is a U.S. nonprofit which manages the [DNS](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System) root servers. When you type "nicholasjohnson.ch" into your search bar and hit enter, ICANN is ultimately in control over what happens next, not me.
 
 ICANN's contracts with domain registries are immune from being challenged and registries can set arbitrary restrictions on content hosted on their domains. [ICANN has an effective monopoly on almost all domain names and punishes people for past sharing.](https://nitter.net/brokep/status/1364950213790740481) For more on that, see the article "[Ending the War on Sharing](https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html)".
 
 Another problem I have with ICANN is one can't legally own a domain name without forking over personal information to the domain name registrar. Most registrars offer to hide that information from public view, but they still have to hand it over under certain circumstances and there's always the possibility that it gets stolen.
 
-To get around that, nicksphere.ch is currently registered through [Njalla](https://njal.la/). Njalla legally owns nicksphere.ch and all its subdomains and in return, I don't have to fork over any personal information. They've been operating for years, but could still run away with my domain name and I'd have no recourse since they legally own it.
+To get around that, nicholasjohnson.ch is currently registered through [Njalla](https://njal.la/). Njalla legally owns nicholasjohnson.ch and all its subdomains and in return, I don't have to fork over any personal information. They've been operating for years, but could still run away with my domain name and I'd have no recourse since they legally own it.
 
 ## Tor and I2P
 Ideally, you're accessing this journal [over](gemini://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion) [Tor](http://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion) [or](gemini://nick6w7lwwzwli57czw5glh3sm2qhnyzbhtq3nohbcnc7j3wqmqq.b32.i2p) [I2P](http://nickg4tsj3wy3i23faxp5momjcnlwrvwl5ek5l7lkm5vrbblvgbq.b32.i2p). Those networks will continue working even if my domain gets hijacked. It's unlikely that something happens to my domain, but it's not impossible.
 
-My Tor onion and I2P addresses aren't foolproof. They're hosted on a VPS, meaning my VPS provider could hijack them. Using nicksphere.ch to access my journal, you have to trust both ICANN and my VPS though. So you're better off using Tor or I2P so you only need to trust one third party, not two.
+My Tor onion and I2P addresses aren't foolproof. They're hosted on a VPS, meaning my VPS provider could hijack them. Using nicholasjohnson.ch to access my journal, you have to trust both ICANN and my VPS though. So you're better off using Tor or I2P so you only need to trust one third party, not two.
 
-Brief digression: To avoid trusting any third party, you can always [verify my journal's Git repository](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere/commit/?h=signify-signature-1) with [my public Signify key](/resource/signify.pub) and a small utility called [git-signify](https://git.nicksphere.ch/git-signify/). If there's any doubt the key is mine, I gave a [Libreplanet talk](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo/) with my public key in the slides five months ago and I have an unbroken history of public keys going back to December of 2020 starting with my original [GPG key](/2021/12/30/statement-of-gpg-key-transition/) which I transitioned away from.
+Brief digression: To avoid trusting any third party, you can always [verify my journal's Git repository](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal/commit/?h=signify-signature-1) with [my public Signify key](/resource/signify.pub) and a small utility called [git-signify](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/git-signify/). If there's any doubt the key is mine, I gave a [Libreplanet talk](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo/) with my public key in the slides five months ago and I have an unbroken history of public keys going back to December of 2020 starting with my original [GPG key](/2021/12/30/statement-of-gpg-key-transition/) which I transitioned away from.
 
 If you yourself are an online service provider, please follow my example and offer a Tor onion and/or I2P address to help resist ICANN's power.
diff --git a/content/entry/on-spirituality.md b/content/entry/on-spirituality.md
index 13c0334..61256cf 100644
--- a/content/entry/on-spirituality.md
+++ b/content/entry/on-spirituality.md
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ The problem skeptics readily point out is most spiritual orators are all too sym
 Harris has even had to [defend his use of the word spiritual](https://samharris.org/a-plea-for-spirituality/) and argue that [spiritual experiences actually happen](https://samharris.org/on-spiritual-truths/). 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](https://samharris.org/whats-the-point-of-transcendence/).
 
 # 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](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-apt), 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.
+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](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953845), 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](https://headless.org/experiments/) 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](https://headless.org/poetry-home.htm) or [experiment](https://headless.org/experiments) that I find compelling.
 
diff --git a/content/entry/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md b/content/entry/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md
index 9e6feed..7659a77 100644
--- a/content/entry/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md
+++ b/content/entry/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md
@@ -5,6 +5,6 @@ draft: false
 ---
 About a month ago, [I announced my LibrePlanet presentation](/2022/03/14/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022/) "Taking Back The Web With Haketilo". In case you missed the livestream, there's now a final, edited copy available on the [LibrePlanet website](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo/). Find the direct link [here](https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/2710/neptune-saturday-1430.webm).
 
-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](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-net-beyond-the-web/)". Find the direct link [here](https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/2711/saturn-sunday-1620.webm).
+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](https://web.archive.org/web/20220523023637if_/https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-net-beyond-the-web/)". Find the direct link [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20220523023637id_/https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/2711/saturn-sunday-1620.webm).
 
 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.
diff --git a/content/entry/the-addiction-to-thinking.md b/content/entry/the-addiction-to-thinking.md
index 85e96b3..5ea1633 100644
--- a/content/entry/the-addiction-to-thinking.md
+++ b/content/entry/the-addiction-to-thinking.md
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2021-02-06T00:00:00
 draft: false
 ---
 # Disclaimer
-I said in a [previous post](/2021/01/17/on-spirituality) that posts tagged spirituality aren't to be interpreted as [truth-apt](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-apt) 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.
+I said in a [previous post](/2021/01/17/on-spirituality) that posts tagged spirituality aren't to be interpreted as [truth-apt](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953845) 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.
diff --git a/content/entry/thoughts-on-logic.md b/content/entry/thoughts-on-logic.md
index ae96238..c405ca5 100644
--- a/content/entry/thoughts-on-logic.md
+++ b/content/entry/thoughts-on-logic.md
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Sometimes people think invalidating an argument by pointing out a logical fallac
 
 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](https://www.spaghettimonster.org/) and [Russell's Teapot](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot). 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](https://www.simulation-argument.com), [Nick Bostrom](https://www.nickbostrom.com/papers) 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.
+The term "evidence" in this context isn't limited to hard, physical evidence. In [The Simulation Argument](https://www.simulation-argument.com), [Nick Bostrom](https://www.nickbostrom.com) 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](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) 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.
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ There are several logical fallacies which fall into the category of what I call
 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](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) or gods 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](https://www.nickbostrom.com/papers) 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.
+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](https://www.nickbostrom.com) 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.
diff --git a/content/entry/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md b/content/entry/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md
index d7e3162..b1b0683 100644
--- a/content/entry/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md
+++ b/content/entry/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Here's a non-comprehensive list of 20 reasons you shouldn't trust police either
 * [Police can and will lie to you](https://www.snyderlawyer.com/blog/ways-police-can-lie-to-you/), especially if you're ignorant of the law. But if you lie to them, you'll be arrested.
 * 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](https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/war-drugs).
 * 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](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Use_of_children_as_informants).
-* [Police infringe upon citizens' freedom to explore their own consciousness through psychedelics.](https://legalizepsychedelics.com/)
+* [Police infringe upon citizens' freedom to explore their own consciousness through psychedelics.](https://web.archive.org/web/20220118020130if_/https://legalizepsychedelics.com/)
 * Two 1990's studies showed [police commit domestic violence at significantly higher rates than the national average](https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/). The stats may have changed since, but it's still cause for concern.
 * [Police officers launder evidence through illegal government surveillance](https://archive.org/details/ParallelReconstruction) to fight the failed war on drugs.
 * [Police departments partner with scAmazon's corporate mass surveillance network to circumvent your 4th amendment rights.](https://www.cancelring.com/)