Sorry you’re getting downvoted to hell. You’re right. Sometimes people want everything to be a conspiracy or something aside from the simpler truth which is that voters just wanted somebody different.

Cenorship-resistant protocols like ActivityPub (Lemmy, Mastodon), Nostr, Tor, I2P, and freenet solve this.

That’s an awfully… interesting way of saying he lost his primary, which as an incumbent is not a particularly easy to do. Blame foreign money all you want, your voters voted for who they wanted. Primary voters are the most politically aware kind of voters, most people don’t vote, even fewer take the time to vote in primaries. Apparently those voters wanted somebody new.

Check the wikipedia article, pretty neutral and factual reporting on the history. TLDR he revealed the US committing war crimes, they went after him with everything they had including planning an assassination attempt (which they never went through with). They tried to apply US law internationally to somebody who wasn’t a US citizen and wasn’t in the US. The UN said his detainment was illegal and torture. He’s been on the run, in some embassy, or jail for over 10 years for activity other news organizations regularly and legally engage in (leaking classified documents). Various US military, intelligence, etc agency heads have testified to congress that they couldn’t find a single death related to the documents he leaked, he didn’t put anybody at risk, in fact, Wikileaks sent every leak to the US govt before leaking it asking them for notes on what to redact. The US refused to participate in that process.

He also revealed the DNC was trying to bury Bernie, which the DNC didn’t even deny, they had to let a bunch of their top people go and do a bunch of primary reforms as a result. That’s when liberals started hating Wikileaks, because the DNC emails helped get Trump elected. They say the “timing” of right before the election makes his leak partisan. But wouldn’t you want that information before you vote? It is the job of wikileaks, or any journalist, to maximize the impact of information they are revealing on corruption. It’s not Julian’s fault the DNC was corrupt AF, all they had to do to avoid that was… not be corrupt.

There were also some sex assault allegations against him, which I tend to believe have some veracity to them however the accusers explicitly did not want him charged, it was a ploy to get him to Sweden where he would be extradited to the US. He was never even charged, only “wanted to questioning” but somehow got an interpol notice for it. His lawyers offered over a dozen times for him to be interviewed but Sweden insisted on an “in-person” interview for some reason. Curious.

Oh, and he helped save Snowden’s life by getting him a flight out of China.

Bitcoin transactions happen at the “speed of light” (~27:00) REALITY CHECK: As Bitcoin has grown, transactions have become slow. It’s in fact why many people do not accept it for purchases anymore.

Bitcoin is the same speed it’s always been. Blocks happen every 10 minutes. The transaction is transmitted at the speed of light but final settlement requires a block. Pay a high fee? Get in on the next block. Want to save on fees? Maybe it takes a few blocks for your transaction to go through. If you use Bitcoin lightning (a scaling layer built on top of Bitcoin which moves transactions off-chain but secures them on-chain), transactions take under a second for pennies in fees. Fees are much, much lower than credit card, paypal, or other similar competitors. You could send a billion dollars in a single transaction and pay $1.50 on main chain, or you could send $5 on lightning and pay <1c in fees. Lightning has been around for 5 years now, it works, I use it regularly.

Bitcoin cannot be diluted (~27:25) REALITY CHECK: Bitcoin is always being diluted until it reaches its hard limit.

The supply of Bitcoin, 21 million coins, is known and has always been known. It can’t be diluted beyond that point.

Nobody controls the network (~28:25) REALITY CHECK: If someone were to own 50% or more of the network’s compute power, they could control the network.

Nobody owns 51% of the network. Even such an actor can’t print extra BTC or force money to move without the appropriate private key. The best they can do is temporarily delay transactions while burning north of a trillion dollars in energy and equipment doing so. Which is why nobody has ever done it.

Bitcoin’s hard limit is likely very dangerous for the network (~29:00): Once the hard limit is reached, it is unclear if people will keep pumping computing power at it. If the creation of new Bitcoin is no longer allowed, it is possible that transaction fees will need to be raised to compensate miners.

Given that fees have continued to increase with time, this seems like not a problem. It’s not “dangerous”, it’s part of the design. If hashrate drops, it drops, but given that fees and hashrate have continued to grow despite continually minting less coins, it’s not really a problem.

Bitcoin’s lack of rules allow for massive amounts of fraud and prevents effective taxation (~29:25): While the video paints a cute picture of financial freedom, the reality is that Bitcoin allows for fraud on a world scale and does not allow for sales tax because of the way that anyone can have a cryptocurrency wallet without disclosing their identity.

Anybody can have a cash wallet without disclosing their identity, yet they still pay taxes. Bitcoin’s rules prevent the kind of fraud where the value of your money is printed away via supply inflation of central banks or “currency restructuring” on the global scale by the the world bank. People pay taxes because they think it’s the right thing to do and/or because the government has guns and makes them. Either way, if you run a company, if you are providing goods and services, you have a place you can send somebody with a gun and enforce those rules. All the companies currently paying taxes would keep paying taxes if they used Bitcoin.

Aah yes, the electronic intifada, such an excellent, neutral source for reporting.

Don’t disclose all their big donors

Peter Thiel is also one of the big donors.

Many orgs don’t disclose donors, particularly those working on human rights. Imagine you are a rich person in a dictatorship who wants to improve human rights in your country, do you want your name listed on the donor registry for Amnesty International? Probably not. Amnesty, btw, sponsors the freedom forum as well alongside the city of Oslo. So Either Amnesty is in on this 4D chess you’re seeing where the far right is somehow using human rights as a cover to… give us all more privacy or something, or maybe Amnesty did their due diligence and concluded that this org is worth working with.

The article states that “Who is Halvorssen? He is best known as the founder and CEO of the Human Rights Foundation, where he is listed as the lone staff member.”, yet their site lists over a dozen people. So that’s just a clearly factually inaccurate statement right there, makes me question the validity of the entire thing if they can’t get something that simple correct. https://hrf.org/about/team/

“Halvorssen is the scion of an oligarchic Venezuelan family closely linked to the political opposition that formed against recently deceased former President Hugo Chavez”

Hmm… I wonder if living under an autocrat might have made him care about human rights and free expression.

Believe it or not, people on the “far right” can care about human rights too, and can donate to human rights organizations, and that’s ok. I challenge you to find any major human rights or civil liberties organization that doesn’t have somebody “far right” or whom you otherwise disagree with strongly. Human rights is an issue that cuts across many different political ideologies. And these organizations can build tools and infrastructure to support human rights all around the globe, and do. We shouldn’t be cancelling organizations just because they got money from somebody we disagree with or even detest. What they actually do with that money should be what matters, something your accusations against this org are completely devoid of because they are actually doing good things. What they’re actually doing is advancing the cause of human rights globally.

It’s organized by the human rights foundation, which is an intl non-profit organization headquartered in New York. The freedom forum is not only hosted in but also donated to by the City of Oslo. It’s all about resisting dictators and autocracy. Ask wikipedia if you doubt

I’d love to see more nuclear power generation. Nuclear power is the densest form of power on earth, it’s safer than even renewables and doesn’t have the huge e-waste or energy storage problems that come with it. It’s very, very safe even compared to windmills depending on where you draw the box. I have never met anybody who actually understands nuclear power safety or waste disposal who is against it. At best, they say “renewables are currently cheaper so let’s focus there” but they’re not like “Nuclear is bad”.

In the ground, very deep, forever, for not nearly as much money as you might think. It takes up very, very little space. It’s not green liquid that can spill, it’s pieces of glass.

Banning porn nationwide is part of Project 2025’s plan. defeatproject2025.org

They want to ban porn in the entire country, it’s all a part of #project2025. They also want to ban abortions. And being gay in public. And completely break the separation of church and state. Don’t sit this election out. https://defeatproject2025.org/

How to contact your MEP. We beat this bill last time, we can beat it again https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home

How to contact your MEP. We beat this bill last time, we can beat it again https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home

Tariffs and moving away from free trade makes us all poorer. We need EVs to be cheap and abundant now more than ever. People complain it’s “uncompetitive” when china subsidizes the shit out of their EV industry, but the US did the exact same thing with “build back better”, and the EU got pissed about it. Just as the US has been doing for decades with agriculture and the defense industry.

I agree subsidies are contrary to the best methods of free trade but until we can force countries to stop (and stop doing it ourselves), they are a part of life. Let china win the EV race, we all get cheap abundant EVs, and America can win the space race and we’ll all get cheap satellite services, and Europe can win idk whatever it is they’re working on over there and we’ll all get a bunch of cheap copies of that.

Or because they’re just genuinely well received by the public. One of my reps has been in public service for decades and I actually like most of his positions. The longer you are in office, in theory, the better you will understand the legislative system and be able to push issues your constituents want. If you do, you keep getting re-elected, if you don’t, you don’t.

Regardless, this is a problem of FPTP and the primary system not age. Primaries select for who is considered the “most electable” not the candidate “most want”. Fix that system, and age is not an issue. Or if more people who don’t like 80 year olds participated in the primaries this would also be less of an issue. But they don’t, they just complain about the “lesser of two evils” choice even though they had a “lesser of 10 evils choice” and chose not to participate in it.

Disagree with this one, voters should have the final say in who is electable. If there’s an 85 year old out there who can convince 51% of the electorate to vote for them in the primaries, go for it. This rule will become a problem if life expectancy continues to increase at the rate it has the past 50 years, with AI and some major changes in genetics, we are poised to solve a lot of causes of death in our lifetime, which means longer life expectancy.

Link without paywall: https://archive.is/TvS0F

There are two factors at play here which have to meet in the middle: where is the most efficient place to produce the product and what is the most efficient way to ship the product? The answer to the first question is: wherever has local access to the resources (people, iron ore, etc) and energy required and has the scale required to efficiently build those products. The more cars your country produces, the bigger your factories are going to be, and the more efficiently you can make cars. The answer to the second is by sea. Always by sea. Boats are vastly more efficient than rail, truck, anything.

from: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jzhebc/eli5_why_are_ships_more_efficient_at_transporting/

Container ships are reallyyyy big and reallyyy slow so they experience relatively low drag

Drag on a plane is high, they have two massive jet engines that try to push them through the air burning literal tons of fuel to do so. Obviously not the best if you want to be efficient.

Drag on a train scales with the weight of the train. A long heavy train will have more rolling resistance that sucks away energy from it. You can’t scale this down without going through and making your wheels harder so they deform less, but you already have steel wheels on steel rails so you’re not going to get much better.

Drag on a ship scales with the surface area of the ship that is touching the water, putting more weight on a ship causes a bit more of the surface to touch the water, but not very much. Moving an empty ship is going to use a surprisingly large amount of fuel because the drag is pretty similar, but your fuel consumption isn’t going to go up linearly with load like it would for a train.

Consider something like a Maersk Triple E, it carries over 18,000 20 foot containers. It can get them up to 23 knots (26 mph) but generally runs at 16 knots for efficiency and does this with just 80,000 HP of engine capacity. Those 18,000 containers would turn into a train 68 miles long! With 140,000 tons available for cargo, that’s just 0.57 HP/ton at full speed, and significantly less at the lower cruising speed(where the ship is built to be efficient). Trains will generally run around 1 HP/ton so this big ass cargo ship is using half to a third as much power to move its cargo.

The downside of this is that it takes 6-8 weeks for a ship to go from China to California, but the upside is that it did that with a crew of just 13 and just had a big diesel running in its happy spot the whole time.

So let them compete, isn’t that the idea? Countries and economies can compete with each other just like companies do. China can subsidize their EVs, America can subsidize its defense industry and corn, Europe can subsidize cheese and wine or whatever it is they make, each country specializes and offers the best product at the cheapest prices for consumers. Or make WTO have more ‘stick’ and less carrot so we can make countries stop subsidizing their own industries.

Either way, a return to trade tariffs and isolationism doesn’t sound great to me. It sounds like everything getting more expensive and less efficient (and therefore, more environmentally wasteful). It also sounds like countries being less dependent on each other, which means less reason to not go to war. We live in a very rare, peaceful time in human history. International trade (and massive technological/scientific breakthroughs) are a major part of that.

Agreed workers need to unionize but your first paragraph is preposterous.

This works because people consider their own labor to have a fixed value.

No they don’t. Do they not choose to apply to one place over the other? Scrutinize the benefits they offer, the location, the pay? Do they not make “lateral moves” to increase their wages? Do they not expect to make more as they gain more experience and knowledge? Do employers not generally pay “senior” employees more than new ones? Plenty of workers realize their labor does not have a fixed value.

The idea that only a special class of people can negotiate on their behalf is reductive and dis-empowering. Workers are capable of negotiating individually and as a union. And if my working conditions suck, and my union sucks at bargaining, I’ll go find a job elsewhere or consider joining a different union.