I think they consider sound money to not provide an easy enough lending environment. If the money goes up in value than there won't be enough incentive to invest, and society will grow too slowly or decay.

They don't see money and prices as information; they see money as wealth and prices as a bad thing, rather than money as economic energy and prices as the information that individuals (neurons) process to coordinate economic activity. Interference in the price of money is like your brain on hard drugs, no longer able to properly respond to the stimuli provided by prices.

When lending is tight, that's simply a sign that the economic brain has determined the market is awash with bad investments and storing energy is of more value than lending. Instead, Keynesians think these economic tumbors should be protected.

I'm an anarcho capitalist, so I don't think these governments are legitimate in the first place, and only exist through the immoral use of force and coercion against peaceful people, Russia, Ukraine, the US. Just wanted to be clear about that; my point is not that Russia is right, my point is that US military adventurism in the middle east has killed 11 million civilians, and that Russia's invasion of Ukraine pails in comparison to the demon we created by invading Iraq, both in it's human costs and in its misalignment with reality.

Maybe they are Russian talking points, just like communists in China believe in Einstein's theories of relativity and the Nazis believed in gravity. These being "Russian talking points" is a statement, and it may have adjacency to the truth; but you would have to clarify how this fits into a rational argument. For instance, "Putin has commited war crimes in Ukraine, as evidenced by (photography, witness)", whereas in this example you are saying "Putin's advisor can't be trusted because he has loose ethical standards", yes that may be true, but you still need to string that together into an actual arguement about the implications of that statement. So specifically, what is wrong with the argument "NATO has been encroaching on Russia's borders, and this is basically our fault"?

Finally, censorship is always wrong, and its only ever used by weak minded tyrants. However, don't confuse what you have with "free speech". Russia and China are less sophisticated than their western counterparts in the realm of information control, they use threats of physical violence. Western countries use cancel culture, backroom deals with tech companies, and legal ambiguity to control information. Of course its wrong, but it exists because we live in a time of dying empires, and Russia is one of them.

You living in Norway I can empathize with your concern, I am friends with a couple Norwegians and can understand you are probably feeling a bit more stressed out about the war in Ukraine than I do. That said, western Europe has gone off the rails, and I truly believe that is a bigger threat to you than Russia.

A few problems; Iraq was never a threat to us, whereas we were pushing to put nukes in Ukraine. Iraq was not attacking Americans, whereas ~15k civilians have died (on both sides to be fair) due to Ukraine's refusal to accept the referendums in donbas. The US lied about WMDs, no Russian is disillusioned about the threat NATO encroachment poses to them.

Yea I mean these neolibs/cons are all like that, but many of them are at least not suicidal about it. Kissinger is the same way, he should be tried for war crimes, but at least he isn't stupid.

Well, its still john Bolton, I'm overall impressed by his (relatively) restrained neoliberal take

You might even be able to run it under the "try" option on Ubuntu from a flash drive

Qrencode, quick and easy if you have Linux already

Something tells me they should have sent some to texas

Its funny because if you ask mechanical keyboard users, they have no actual opinion, they just go with whatever rainbow rbg shit their favorite streamer uses because its in style.

Bump. I wish I had the technical knowledge to help, we really should have a community of node operators here to help each other out. Lord knows I'd be there every day.

Let's say for sake of argument, you buy bitcoin and coinjoin it to self custody immediately. You pay effectively no taxes and the government can't prove you didn't spend it on a good or service. Now you have laundered bitcoin that you can trade freely and without fear, no?