ostrophonics

the guys who built the road were taxed on their wages and they should be mad as hell about that, too.

it's a comment on a web forum, he doesn't have to reiterate the entire history of heterodox economics for you to be convinced its a defensible position. and anyway, it's quite besides the point since the economic argumentation is secondary to the observation that cypherpunks were an anti-taxation and anti-government - basically anarchist - subculture out of which crypto emerged.

make your own kind of net! HTML and CSS are cool again

decentralized financial protocols are making more bitcoin available outside of centralized exchanges than ever before. Ren for instance is a major custodial backing protocol that wraps bitcoin for trade through decentralized smart contracts representing market makers, lending protocols, derivatives, options, and other products. and people can buy insurance to protect their staked holdings against smart contract attacks; these policies are both fiat- and crypto-backed insurance policies, on- and off-chain.

is partial AFU mode anything less than a backdoor?

This sort of thing is always by turns boring and frustrating to read, because there are good and interesting philosophical criticisms to be made of Foucault's epistemology, but the idea that for him facticity itself is questionable isn't one of them. Foucault is never really in doubt about what constitutes, e.g., an event, occurrence, or fact - actually his entire corpus very self-consciously relies on having a common set of texts that we agree constitute accounts of what happened in a given field of inquiry in a given time period. Foucault's epistemology strongly requires and insists on the objectivity of the archive. He wouldn't be able to make authoritative claims about the historical importance of Kantian representation, or Bentham's pantopticon, if he didn't think the archive of philosophical and scientific writings had some objective merit that wasn't in question. He's emphatically not the moral relativist he's made out to be by low-hanging fruit conservatism like this. What he - and a lot of his colleagues in France at the time - wanted to know was whether the system of interpretations that has accrued around this archive has gotten to the bottom of what our 19th century forebears were really up to when they were, for instance, busy examining the shapes of skulls to determine personality traits.

why is instant messaging so important? why can't people use eg an encrypted tor bridge to send and receive encrypted emails? or is a mobile phone cheaper/more practical than a laptop in such a situation?

> This isn't how a stable society should be set up

and why not? antifragile systems gain stability as they endure shocks. why not cyclically generate then destroy business? makes it easier to funnel resources to the top, because only the biggest - i.e., the most moneyed, hence the most liquid, hence best reactive to risk, hence most stable - firms can survive.

you may not like it morally, but two centuries of corporate history leave little to gainsay empirically about this notion.