They told us inflation was 3.5%. Now they tell us inflation is 2.9%.
Donβt believe your lying eyes.
Absolutely. Inflation is far higher than the CPI measurements.
I wrote a program some time ago that calculates the loss of purchasing power over a 45 year career based on different rates of inflation and taxes.
A few examples:
#Inflation #Purchasing #Power #Tax #Taxes #CPI
Another US election year fearmongering virus scam from the UN deep state.
This reminds me of how powerful GIMP is as a software, while at the same time, many of its menus are confusing and hard to use for a beginner.
Gathering user feedback should be priority 1 in improving the UI workflow of users. For a composing app - gather feedback from composers. For an art app - gather feedback from artists, and so on.
1. Feedback
2. Improve user workflow efficiency
3. Appealing design
The feedback process could start long before designers are funded.
π
I think that Jack didn't have the capital to turn Twitter around by himself. Standing up against powerful government pressure groups must be tough economically.
In either case, if Jack is striving to benefit liberty here and now he's at least on the right path. I appreciate the work he has done to provide us with more options.
As the puzzle is playing out, we have to make the best out of the puzzle pieces we have available.
nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m is a disgusting piece of shit by the way. 
I disagree.
It appears that Jack was swamped by government pressure groups, involving the CIA, while Jack was attempting to keep Twitter afloat.
Jack then embraced Bitcoin and turned around toward working with liberty solutions, allowing Elon to bring a new course for Twitter. Without Elon's capital backing, standing up against pressure groups and coalitions of advertisers would have been difficult economically.
There is no need to hate a man that has joined the liberty side. The existence of Twitter has been a net positive in spite of its censorship and Jack has provided the world with an additional option for social media when Facebook, Reddit and other alternatives were overwhelmed with establishment propaganda.
Nostr is the future, yet Twitter/X still has its role to play in advancing free speech, until it is overwhelmed by the attacks from the system.
During this period of *relative* liberty on Twitter, Nostr has a chance to evolve and be ready to accomodate individuals that will be silenced on Twitter over the coming months/years.
These are parts of a greater puzzle being solved as we speak.
A few reflections from the recent 3 hour talk with Elon Musk and Donald Trump on Twitter/X.
Trump's main strength in my view is the energy sector. With a potent and competive energy sector, without unnecessary red tape regulations, electricity becomes cheaper to produce. The pricing of all goods, services and transports are heavily impacted by the cost of energy.
This is also a sector where Trump has no competition, except Vivek Ramaswamy who quit the presidential race. Both Kamala Harris and RFK jr both have a bad record on energy policy, related to beliefs in global warming doomsday scenarios.
Regarding Trump we have an 8 year historical record his support for the US energy sector, in opposition to the UN Agenda 21 policies that are fueled by irrational climate alarmism.
Overiew:
2017. Trump pulls the US out of the Paris climate accord. He says that it is "designed to kill the US economy".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iI24uAdAYro
2020. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump opposed the anti-energy policies that the WEF have an obsessession with implementing. Trump referred to the climate alarmists as "prophets of doom".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0UiFRZ3t_KM
2021. On January 20, 2021, Biden signed the US back into the Paris climate accord. This was done on his first day in office, indicating that this was a high priority matter.
2023. Trump was critiquing Germany for closing its nuclear power plants and implementing harmful climate alarmism policies.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sJSr4tFkjcA
2024. February. Trump announces that he will not allow the creation of a CBDC.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oUjMK8d6omo
In light of the above, it is reasonable to assume that Trump takes energy policies seriously and is willing to sacrifice his own reputation in the media in order to secure American energy interests. Without energy there is no civilization.
My main disagreement with Trump is his positive outlook on the mRNA vaccine development.
First I would like to clarify that I think it is a terrible idea to inject mRNA spike proteins into the human body.
Yet, as far as I understand Trump's position, his general stance is embracing medical competition and production, in an assumed societal environment where individuals can access medical treatments under informed consent and under a climate of free speech.
His support for Hydroxychloroquine in 2020 demonstrated an openness for experimental approaches on a voluntary basis, in spite of the demonization and ridicule from the mainstream media.
I do support medical freedom and my starting point is that all kinds of medicine should be available for purchase, including experimental treatments. If someone is seriously ill I can't deny them the option to choose an experimental treatment provided that they are aware of and have access to data that can reveal the risks involved.
The key issue here is to have a societal climate where free speech is in full effect and individuals can find and share opinions, experience and research that highlights the potential risks of any particular medication or treatment. This failed catastrophically during Covid due to online censorship and demonization campaigns.
The failings during Covid were legion and in particular related to central planning. I will here highlight two out of many points of failure.
1. Governments purchasing millions of doses of experimental vaccines for taxpayer money.
This is not how a free market operates. In a free market individuals buy their own medications based on their own personal judgement and estimation of risks to their health.
This also requires a genuine free market where all medications are available to consumers so that potential working solutions can be tested and spread via word-of-mouth recommendation. Banning certain medications or treatments is not a free market policy.
2. Presidents and government officials pressuring the public to take experimental vaccines. Add the demonization of critics and those who do not consent to a particular treatment.
Justin Trudeau is one noteable example of presidents during Covid that abused their position to stigmatize critics and create a climate in favor of mandated experimental vaccines.
These political pressures in turn caused corporations to fall in line with the government pro-vaccine position over inflated fears, both of the virus and also fears of government fines against companies that would not cooperate with government policy.
We saw mandated vaccines as a result with devastating effects on individuals living under immense pressure to take a treatment that could harm them, or face losing their livelihoods.
I could write more in depth here on these Covid-related horrors of central planning but I will leave all the deeper details for now.
It is entirely possible to support experimental treatments while at the same time not agreeing with tyrannical central planning mandates and accompanying censorship.
Allowing for experimental medicines comes with both risks and possibilities. Having a free market, based on indivudual liberties and informed consent, is fundamental.
Hence the importance of free speech. Without proper information of risks and a genuine ability to reject a treatment, we have no basis to formulate consent.
#Talk #Trump #Elon #Musk #Energy #Climate #Vaccine
I wrote a few reflections on this talk yesterday if anyone is interested.
VPNs will be used of course.
But, it would also be an opportunity to demonstrate the value of Nostr. Nostr will shine even brighter under censorship.
I often think about this.
In years to come, 1000 sats will be sufficient to pay for a human-made artwork, a logo or some other service. Quite remarkable.
A few reflections from the recent 3 hour talk with Elon Musk and Donald Trump on Twitter/X.
Trump's main strength in my view is the energy sector. With a potent and competive energy sector, without unnecessary red tape regulations, electricity becomes cheaper to produce. The pricing of all goods, services and transports are heavily impacted by the cost of energy.
This is also a sector where Trump has no competition, except Vivek Ramaswamy who quit the presidential race. Both Kamala Harris and RFK jr both have a bad record on energy policy, related to beliefs in global warming doomsday scenarios.
Regarding Trump we have an 8 year historical record his support for the US energy sector, in opposition to the UN Agenda 21 policies that are fueled by irrational climate alarmism.
Overiew:
2017. Trump pulls the US out of the Paris climate accord. He says that it is "designed to kill the US economy".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iI24uAdAYro
2020. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump opposed the anti-energy policies that the WEF have an obsessession with implementing. Trump referred to the climate alarmists as "prophets of doom".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0UiFRZ3t_KM
2021. On January 20, 2021, Biden signed the US back into the Paris climate accord. This was done on his first day in office, indicating that this was a high priority matter.
2023. Trump was critiquing Germany for closing its nuclear power plants and implementing harmful climate alarmism policies.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sJSr4tFkjcA
2024. February. Trump announces that he will not allow the creation of a CBDC.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oUjMK8d6omo
In light of the above, it is reasonable to assume that Trump takes energy policies seriously and is willing to sacrifice his own reputation in the media in order to secure American energy interests. Without energy there is no civilization.
My main disagreement with Trump is his positive outlook on the mRNA vaccine development.
First I would like to clarify that I think it is a terrible idea to inject mRNA spike proteins into the human body.
Yet, as far as I understand Trump's position, his general stance is embracing medical competition and production, in an assumed societal environment where individuals can access medical treatments under informed consent and under a climate of free speech.
His support for Hydroxychloroquine in 2020 demonstrated an openness for experimental approaches on a voluntary basis, in spite of the demonization and ridicule from the mainstream media.
I do support medical freedom and my starting point is that all kinds of medicine should be available for purchase, including experimental treatments. If someone is seriously ill I can't deny them the option to choose an experimental treatment provided that they are aware of and have access to data that can reveal the risks involved.
The key issue here is to have a societal climate where free speech is in full effect and individuals can find and share opinions, experience and research that highlights the potential risks of any particular medication or treatment. This failed catastrophically during Covid due to online censorship and demonization campaigns.
The failings during Covid were legion and in particular related to central planning. I will here highlight two out of many points of failure.
1. Governments purchasing millions of doses of experimental vaccines for taxpayer money.
This is not how a free market operates. In a free market individuals buy their own medications based on their own personal judgement and estimation of risks to their health.
This also requires a genuine free market where all medications are available to consumers so that potential working solutions can be tested and spread via word-of-mouth recommendation. Banning certain medications or treatments is not a free market policy.
2. Presidents and government officials pressuring the public to take experimental vaccines. Add the demonization of critics and those who do not consent to a particular treatment.
Justin Trudeau is one noteable example of presidents during Covid that abused their position to stigmatize critics and create a climate in favor of mandated experimental vaccines.
These political pressures in turn caused corporations to fall in line with the government pro-vaccine position over inflated fears, both of the virus and also fears of government fines against companies that would not cooperate with government policy.
We saw mandated vaccines as a result with devastating effects on individuals living under immense pressure to take a treatment that could harm them, or face losing their livelihoods.
I could write more in depth here on these Covid-related horrors of central planning but I will leave all the deeper details for now.
It is entirely possible to support experimental treatments while at the same time not agreeing with tyrannical central planning mandates and accompanying censorship.
Allowing for experimental medicines comes with both risks and possibilities. Having a free market, based on indivudual liberties and informed consent, is fundamental.
Hence the importance of free speech. Without proper information of risks and a genuine ability to reject a treatment, we have no basis to formulate consent.
#Talk #Trump #Elon #Musk #Energy #Climate #Vaccine
I feel so protected by the EU.
They have our best interests at heart.
(If I ever say this with a straight face, I am no longer in power of my faculties)
π
Fair enough.
My view is that if breakdancing is added to a competition then at least there needs to be serious competitive rules by which the performance can be ranked. Without established rules there is no sport.
For painting, music, movies etc, we have genres and subgenres. Within each subgenre we compare competing expressions.
A genre or subgenre is, at the end of the day, defined by its audience, who determine the genre rules by voting with their wallets, attention and passion.
For example, within the fantasy comic book genre, every new book competes with the existing books that have set the standards.
Within classical music, a new composition is compared to existing compositions.
Within metal music, a new album is compared to other metal albums within the niche.
Within movies, a new sci-fi movie competes with existing sci-fi movies.
The same applies to art. A new abstract painting is compared with existing abstract paintings within its subcategory.
If a genre does not exist we create it.
Good distinction between competition and exhibition!
Considering how many impressive breakdancers that exist in the world, it is inconceivable that a mediocre breakdancer with a PhD in questionable social studies is awarded as the best female Australian breakdancer, and then inserted into the Olympics to signal some political point, just by pure happenstance.
They have turned everything into the realm of the political.
A staged exhibition based on some kind of idea of lecturing the public on how to *be* and *think* according to their measuring scale, without any regard for skilled breakdancers that are non-political and had no chance at demonstrating what they can achieve.
The deeper problem with "free" government education.
All government power rests on public perception. As a result we can predict that every government is keen on controlling education and media.
#School #Education #Liberty #Homeschool #Meme #Memes #Government #Schooling #Propaganda
Thoughts on the breakdancing spectacle at the 2024 Olympics.
By critiquing "ableness", a performer does no longer have to compete via skill.
At that point it becomes a competition about being politically aligned (correct) toward the establishment.
In other words: woke.
Rejecting the idea of objectively measurable performance and skill has been a theme in postmodernism for a century.
If our ideology involves rejecting "ableness" or the idea of agreed-upon achievement rankings, then skill becomes irrelevant and ideological correctness becomes the only "game" hierarchy.
At that point we are asked to compete in ideological purity, not achievement.
This being said, I am not against abstract art and competitions that involve some amount of subjective evaluations. Even abstract art is impacted by aesthetic considerations.
Within every art genre we compare the quality of competing contributions. We rank competing submissions based on creativity, skill, vision, beauty and artistic achievement. We want the most impressive contributions within a genre to rank over the less impressive contributions. In short: meritocracy. Or at least some approximation of it.
Meritocracy is delibarately deconstructed under the banner of postmodernism. While we can debate which of two abstract paintings is more impressive, and while our criteria for a ranking an achievement can differ from person to person, we can only create *meaningful* genres of competition where we agree on the overall ranking criteria.
Every sport and competition requires vocalized and agreed-upon ranking criteria. If those ranking criteria involve ideological purity and not some acknowledged and demonstrable achievement then we have just made political correctness into a sport that trumps all other forms of achievement.
Let there be as many genres of competition as we can imagine, but let's not determine someone's achievement by their alignment to some ideological system. Peers compete against peers.
#Meritocracy #Postmodernism #Sport #Art #Achievement #Competition #Woke
I get the joke, but the underlying idea is braindead.
No rational person would believe that you must be chained to a single communications channel to be a producer.
Let's not make Nostr into a cult please.