1 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/themes/journal b/themes/journal
-Subproject bae28645e8b634ecb1e960b725bd9479169a08b
+Subproject 112abca730d7585e548fedf58162e098eb4304b
diff --git a/content/about.md b/content/about.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dbc0555
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/about.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+title: "About"
+date: 2022-04-27T00:00:00
+draft: false
+_build:
+  list: never
+---
+# WELCOME TO THE ABOUT PAGE!
+Welcome to the about page! My name is Nicholas Johnson. Below are the things I've chosen to associate with my public digital identity.  
+
+## Contact Info
+The easiest way to contact me is through email. Feel free to encrypt emails to my Age public key, but be aware that Age over email is no substitute for a proper secure messaging application.
+
+[📬 Email](mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch)
+[🔑 Age Key](../resource/age.pub)
+
+After exchanging a few emails, we can migrate to a secure messenging application if it seems appropriate.
+
+## Signing Key
+My Signify key serves as my trust anchor. I use it to sign Git commits. Git only supports GnuPG, so I use a hack to sign commits with Signify. You can also use this hack to verify my signed commits.
+
+[🔑 Signify Key](../resource/signify.pub)
+[🔐 Git-Signify](https://git.nicksphere.ch/git-signify/)
+
+## Online Services
+Below are the online services I host.
+
+### CGit
+[🔎 ICANN](https://git.nicksphere.ch)
+[🥸 I2P](http://nick5la4gcv6tzdjk2pf55p5vi24pcxseioyko24ffd4x3uijdca.b32.i2p)
+[🥸 Tor](http://git.nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion)
+
+### Tor Relay
+[📈 Stats](https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/B04ABF4521C773216BC94F6FC1310686A2ECA150)
+
+## Journal Mirrors
+I've established mirrors of my journal on several different servers and networks in order to protect it from server compromise, downtime, and censorship. The URLs without a scheme support both Gemini and the Web.
+
+### Nicksphere (primary mirror)
+[🔎 ICANN](//nicksphere.ch)
+[🥸 I2P Capsule](gemini://nick6w7lwwzwli57czw5glh3sm2qhnyzbhtq3nohbcnc7j3wqmqq.b32.i2p)
+[🥸 I2P Site](http://nickg4tsj3wy3i23faxp5momjcnlwrvwl5ek5l7lkm5vrbblvgbq.b32.i2p)
+[🥸 Tor](//nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion)
+
+### Archive (historical mirror)
+[🔎 ICANN](https://web.archive.org/web/20220314013643id_/https://nicksphere.ch/)
+
+### Flounder (partial mirror)
+[🔎 ICANN](//0gitnick.flounder.online)
+
+### Sourcehut
+[🔎 ICANN](//gitnick.srht.site)
+
+## Donations
+I will add donation methods as soon as it's possible to make online payments anonymously without cryptocurrency.
+
+[💸 GNU Taler](https://taler.net)
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.
+