I like programs with "advanced" menus that makes it clear that they will work with default settings, but still explains what all the advanced settings do (of course with appropriate warnings of what could go wrong if they are set wrong, if applicable). I need at least a basic understanding of things in order to trust them, and that's - for me - one of the best ways to get that basic understanding when it comes to software. No searching for obscure terms, reading lengthy documentation, etc., just an, at least basic, explanation of what every toggle, menu item, etcetera, does.

Probably not. It was a while ago, but no more than ten years, that a Pirate Party Member of European Parliament (or someone in close proximity, I don't remember) blogged about many of these people deciding the EU:s digital future not using e-mail themselves, but getting them printed out for them...

The conspiracy theorist in me tells me that their plan is:

1: force open source out of the market.

2: force all closed-source companies to install backdoors.

3: surveil everyone, all the time.

4, maybe: steal bit- and shitcoins at will (or at least block their use), from anyone they want.

Can't decide if they are evil masterminds with such a plan, or "highly regarded" and not knowing the first thing about the potential consequences of their actions. It's either or. Nothing in between.

What can be done to prevent the crackdown on anonymity, privacy, freedom of speech, with the planned false-flag on the banks and e-ID:s required on ISP level etc? To say these things to a "normie" now would result in them wondering what we've been smoking, or if we need to be checked in to the nuthouse, even if they know us since childhood. Then, when it's done, they agree it's necessary, and we're idiots for not realizing that, or worse, that we're people who just want to do cybercrime...

If this comes to pass, both Bitcoin and Nostr is dead, and there is 0% chance of any freedom ever returning - for millennia - bar a Carrington event killing everything electric, and billions of people as a result.

I think we would need hugely trusted people talking about these plans, people who the "normies" see as truth personified. Most of those work for the enemy. How could we spread these news to the few who doesn't, and convince them to talk about it?

Cheap LED lights are often over-advertised regarding their wattage, try measuring those 20W ones with a plug-in meter. The strobing depends on how the driver electronics are constructed, there are LED bulbs that has practically zero flicker - far less than incandescents even. If you get a name brand like for example Philips or Ledvance (previously Osram), you're far less likely to encounter these two problems. There are good cheap ones too, but it's hard to know which ones before trying them.

The cheap ones are also often over-driven and doesn't last long and/or lose light output over a relatively short time.

The color rendering is measured in RA or CRI (same thing, different names), and there are LED bulbs with higher numbers. None as high as incandescents - 100 - but 95+ exist. The usual for LED bulbs is just 80. The better ones are slightly less energy efficient, and usually more than slightly more expensive, 1.5 to 3X the price, but since only name brands make them AFAIK, they'll probably last at least 1.5 to 3X the time of the cheap ones too, so it's probably worth it, at least in the kitchen/eating area, over the mirror, etc.

Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines. Maybe try to make us overconfident and share more openly that we have bitcoin before banning self custody or something like that, for example, so that they have more data on whom to harass for our BTC. Or it's some kind of psychological warfare to break us by making us think we're winning, and then some power show to put us in our place.

Regarding groups, maybe. That's probably part of it. But it seems to me that most people outsource the vast majority of thinking to others though, to the point of having some strange way of believing completely incompatible things, as long as they come from people or institutions they trust. I wouldn't call such people particularly smart, even if they trusted us, even if that of course would be orders of magnitude better than them trusting the MSM.

It's probably part of human nature, but the extent of it seems to vary, and more like 95/5 than the usual 80/20.

I didn't realize they had something blocking reading until I temporarily allowed them in NoScript to try to see the comments.... You could try to download NoScript or block them in it if you already have it.

Doesn't seem too bad, compared to what the EU usually does. No mention of anything regarding AI run on home machines, except for possibly that "software" for example would have to make it clear that AI-generated images are AI generated, and possibly some manufacturer assurances in "high risk" areas such as "hiring and education". Not sure how to interpret the text, if it goes for downloadable software or just software running on someone's server, or what about open source with random private contributors. Use of facial recognition by police and governments would be restricted outside of certain exemptions. (Great, in my opinion, unless those exemptions are a rubber paragraph that can be used to exempt most of the restrictions, or the restrictions themselves are weak - it wouldn't surprise me...)

Big players like ChatGPT seems to be regulated harder, but as far as I can tell, not much more than they are already doing themselves.

Could cause problems for some kinds of companies that want to use AI in their business though. The article seems a bit vague in exactly what is regulated. But it seems like the focus is to target AI that is used to analyze, and would have an impact on, other people than the ones commanding it. (A two-edged sword in my opinion, until I know what it means more specifically - I value privacy very highly, and wouldn't want to be automatically excluded in innumerable situations, for example, but as usual the devil may be in the details, so that people like use are perfectly OK, maybe even mandatory, to exclude, etc... I haven't read the actual law text, and even if I did, it would probably not answer my questions. The EU has a tendency to make laws first, and after that take a look at what they mean...)

Some excerpts:

"European policymakers focused on A.I.’s riskiest uses by companies and governments, including those for law enforcement and the operation of crucial services like water and energy. Makers of the largest general-purpose A.I. systems, like those powering the ChatGPT chatbot, would face new transparency requirements. Chatbots and software that creates manipulated images such as “deepfakes” would have to make clear that what people were seeing was generated by A.I., according to E.U. officials and earlier drafts of the law."

"Use of facial recognition software by police and governments would be restricted outside of certain safety and national security exemptions. Companies that violated the regulations could face fines of up to 7 percent of global sales."

"Companies that make A.I. tools that pose the most potential harm to individuals and society, such as in hiring and education, would need to provide regulators with proof of risk assessments, breakdowns of what data was used to train the systems and assurances that the software did not cause harm like perpetuating racial biases. Human oversight would also be required in creating and deploying the systems."

"Some practices, such as the indiscriminate scraping of images from the internet to create a facial recognition database, would be banned outright."

"The new regulations will be closely watched globally. They will affect not only major A.I. developers like Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI, but other businesses that are expected to use the technology in areas such as education, health care and banking. Governments are also turning more to A.I. in criminal justice and the allocation of public benefits."

The important thing is what it does. It does the same thing: prevent certain narratives, or debunking of other narratives, from reaching the masses. Whether it's called censorship or not is of far less importance.

Should be possible, if I remember correctly, superheterodyne receivers, which is pretty much every receiver, do emit some RF energy. I can't remember if it's fixed or a certain distance from what it's tuned to, I think it was the latter, but don't quote me on that. You could perhaps analyze the circuit and connect the antenna to a more suitable point, to get it out better, unless it's all done in an IC, then it's probably a matter of putting the antenna wire close to it and hope for the best, you might get a meter or two if you're lucky... Not completely sure on how to modulate it though, it was a long time since I studied these things. Try either to find how the frequency for the superhet is generated if it's (at least partially) discrete, otherwise perhaps modulate the voltage to the IC and you might be able to get an AM signal out. Or if it's quick enough to start up, just on-off key it.

Unfortunately I'd guess they're almost right. The "normies" are the vast majority, and regarding these kind of things, they are indeed stupid.

There has been an uptick in people online who seem to want freedom, and understand more, but I can't tell if it's because there actually are, or if the "they" are trying something new with the algorithms. The difference is so sudden, just a couple of months, it makes me suspicious. What would the "they"'s goal be in trying to make it appear to us as if we are gaining ground?

I hope I didn't do anything stupid... I clicked it and it led to a video of Elon Musk discussing an ad boycott on X, ending with an ad for Primal. The video file is an MP4. Could a .BIN file link open something malicious and still show the video? Firefox browser on a Linux system.

Not so good when using or owning bitcoin sovereignly becomes the highly illegal activity, in most places in the world. It wouldn't surprise me if it happens soon after the ETF:s are approved.

I think I figured it out: sarcasm towards FUD against evaporation cooled mining farms: note1y3ymzzy7rxh2zh09hehwye9pap4cptwlwldm894m2wzm7s8jgf3scsl7pu

Water? What's the setup using up water? Evaporation cooling?

Harmonize vs. take the worst and apply everywhere. (EU special.)

Threat to democracy vs. we don't like it.

Balancing privacy and security vs. destroying both.

Responsibility/accountability vs. do as we say.

Money laundering vs. free (as in freedom) and private transactions.

Minorities vs. the particular minorities we like.

Fighting crime vs. making things unpleasant and complicated only for non-criminals.

For public health/the environment/etc. vs. a hefty tax on this is a cash cow. (Nicotine, fuel, etc.)

Stakeholders vs. the ones who bribe us.

National security vs. our need to spy on our own citizens.

Disinformation vs. the truth about what we do.

Online safety vs. censorship.

An idea: Green candles with Bitcoin logo :-)

nostr:npub1az9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgstam8y8 Regarding last episode of Bitcoin.review, does the manufacturer state any reason for having unique ID:s, and printing them on the box, on the Raspberry Pi 5:s? Or is it the usual matter of antifeatures that creep into everything without anyone questioning them?

Also, what's the story with Broadcom? I've heard you say on two episodes they're the worst - I have no reason to doubt you, but I haven't heard why.

What happened here? https://mempool.space/block/0000000000000000000022d1fbfb5ea34357dc2c341b160abdf2e8c5a774f847

Over 85 BTC in fees?

Regarding health in general: I like that people are questioning the money-driven narratives, and are exploring alternative ways. What I would like to see however, is actual explanations. You give some here regarding vaccines, and that's great, but many in the space of questioning official medicine only work on "do this instead, because it's natural" or similar, often denouncing "chemical" things even when they're molecularly identical to the naturally occurring substance, without further explanation, or that it "works together with the other things in the natural source". As the type of person who wants to have at least a basic understanding of the workings of something in order to trust it, what I would want is explanations along the lines of "substance A increases bodily substance B, which is taken up better by the receptor C because of the reduction of bodily substance E due to substance D in the source".

The lack of these chains of reasoning in many of the sources of "not-medical-advice advice", makes me suspect that they don't know what they are talking about. Which is perhaps not strange, given the lack of no-strings-attached funding of research.

Is there a possible fix for this through Bitcoin in the future?