Like these weekly compilations? Tip me at $kaybarr1735 or check out my Dandelion Doodles!
1. Florida city installs Pride bike racks after being forced to remove rainbow crosswalks
“The city of St. Petersburg recently announced that it has installed 11 Pride-inspired bike racks along Central Ave and 25th Street, funded through the City’s long-standing public bike rack program. The move allows a public display of LGBTQ+ Pride while complying with the state and federal government's orders to keep crosswalks undecorated. [… T]he bike rack installation is only one of the actions Welch's administration has planned in response to the removal of public art.”
2. Indian Buffalo Management Act Affirms Trust Responsibility, Food Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples
“The bill directs the Department of the Interior to consult and collaborate with Tribes and Tribal organizations in the restoration of the species and underscores the significance of buffalo as a subsistence right for Tribes. “Buffalo are a treaty right afforded to Tribes in support of food sovereignty and self-determination. This bill recognizes the federal government’s trust obligation to build capacity and access to buffalo on Tribal lands[….]””
3. Hope for tigers grows as Thailand safeguards a key link in their habitat
“Since [2010], the population has rebounded to an estimated 5,574 as of 2023[….] The largest remaining tract of forest in mainland Southeast Asia, WEFCOM encompasses 17 contiguous protected areas that span an area roughly the size of Kuwait. […] The region’s tiger population has more than tripled in response [to habitat conservation], increasing from a low of just 40 tigers in 2007 to more than 140 of the big cats prowling WEFCOM today.”
4. California hospital will continue youth gender-affirming care after families protest
“The largest hospital system in Northern California […] quietly informed those receiving the care […] that the treatment would stop as of December 10. […] Rainbow Families Action, a collective of families in the Bay Area who have trans children, [rallied] outside a Sutter facility on December 8. Less than a week later, Sutter Health has reportedly reversed its decision, and rescheduled the appointments that were canceled.”
5. Congo’s communities are creating a 1-million-hectare biodiversity corridor
““The corridor is about conserving a block of forest between the two protected areas, allowing species to move safely from one place to another,” Bikaba says. […] To establish these community-managed forests, […] communities that have customary ownership of lands, [are helped to] formalize this into a community forestry concession (CFCL) — a formal arrangement that grants lands to communities in perpetuity.”
December 8-14 news here | (all credit for images and written material can be found at the source linked; I don’t claim credit for anything but curating.)
I’m on tour with my new book, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI. Catch me in LA TOMORROW (Jun 19) at Skylight Books, and on SUNDAY (Jun 21) at Kepler’s in Menlo Park. After that, it’s Toronto, NYC, Philly and Chicago.
Back at the height of the blockchain bubble, I made a hobby of pointing out that crypto weirdos were palming a card. I used this formulation:
if: problem + blockchain = problem – blockchain
then: blockchain = 0
You see, blockchain weirdos kept insisting that they could solve problems related to trust and institutional design with "smart contracts." Rather than having to trust a board of directors to steer an organization, you could just have a self-executing institution, the "distributed autonomous organization" or DAO.
So for example, if you want to buy a copy of the US Constitution at a Sotheby's auction, you could set up a DAO to raise and pool the funds, eliminating the need to find trustworthy people to receive, hold and deploy these funds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConstitutionDAO
However – and here's where the palmed card comes in – the DAO can't go to Sotheby's and place a bid on the Constitution. Instead, the members of the DAO have to elect a guy to receive all that cash, walk into Sotheby's, get one of those little ping-pong paddles last seen at the State of the Union in Chuck Schumer's withered claw (emblazoned with the brave slogan "You're hurting my fee-fees") and raise the paddle during the bidding.
That guy doesn't have to go to Sotheby's. That guy can simply walk away with all the money. Members of the DAO are trusting this guy with their entire collective treasury. Indeed, since the DAO has no corresponding legal entity, it might even be that members of the DAO can't sue this guy if he steals all their money – and even worse, without a limited liability structure, it might mean that everyone in the DAO can be sued for anything bad this guy does with the money.
Which raises the question: what's the point of building this insanely complex hairball of blockchain-based smart contracts to raise and hold the money if you're just going to hand it to this guy and trust him without limit? Why not just have that guy set up a Zelle account and a Whatsapp group? In other words: the problem that the DAO is trying to solve is the difficulty of trusting people with the keys to the kingdom, but no matter how much blockchain you sprinkle on this DAO, it ends with this one guy walking around with all your money, which he can steal with impunity if he so chooses.
Or, put more succinctly:
if: problem + blockchain = problem – blockchain
then: blockchain = 0
This turns out to be a really good way of assessing policy prescriptions for their soundness and foundation in reality, because – as the blockchain swindle shows us – it's possible to come up with entirely fictitious solutions to entirely real problems. The problem of designing a trustworthy institution that can't be betrayed by its leaders and whose operations don't consume all its resources is a real problem – it's quite possibly the real problem – but adding a DAO does nothing to solve the core problems of institutional design, and actually makes some of those problems worse.
There's another real problem with a fictitious solution that is – surprise! – tied to another tech bubble: digital sovereignty.
It's a genuine problem that everyone in the world (outside of China's sphere of influence) is glued to America's tech platforms. These platforms steal everyone's money and data, and every country has signed a trade deal with the USA promising not to let its own technologists and entrepreneurs go into business making add-ons and complementary goods that remediate the defects in America's tech exports:
What's more, Trump's response to finding himself in this poker game that's rigged entirely in his favor is to flip over the table because he resents having to pretend to play at all (as November Kelly so aptly put it). His incontinent belligerence on the world stage sees him making bids to steal whole countries and he's recruited American tech giants to help him in this chaotic program of lunatic imperialism. When other countries' public officials make decisions that Trump dislikes, he gets companies like Microsoft to disconnect whole institutions from the internet, deleting their files, email archives, calendars and address books, and depriving them of the ability to connect to any service tied to their Outlook accounts:
Which means that if Trump wants to steal Greenland, he doesn't have to roll tanks into Nuuk – he can just brick the country of Denmark. He can shut down all their ministries, every large firm, every household. He can shut down their iPhones and Android devices. He can kill their smart-speakers. He can hormuz the world's supply of Ozempic, Lego and ferociously strong licorice:
This is the digital sovereignty risk. It's also the digital sovereignty opportunity. If countries repeal the laws that the US bullied them into accepting, laws that protect US tech giants from local competitors who block their plunder of data and money, they can turn America's tech trillions into their own tech billions. As Jeff Bezos likes to say, "your margin is my opportunity":
Meanwhile, repealing these US-protecting laws would enable countries to extract their data from US platforms so they can move it into domestic alternatives, and bypass the software locks that block them from updating phones, cars, tractors and ventilators to protect them from remote killswitches:
The digital sovereignty risk is having your country's government, businesses and industries terminated by Trump. The digital sovereignty opportunity is making billions of dollars by producing and exporting products that defend people from Big Tech plunder and Trumpian killswitches. That is the real world.
But many "digital sovereignty" advocates are living in an imaginary world, in which the digital sovereignty risk is that Trump will shut off their country's access to AI.
This is where the "if problem + blockchain" formulation comes in handy. If Trump shut off Canada's access to Chatgpt, Claude and Grok tomorrow, nothing would happen. No significant business, no federal or provincial ministry, no municipal government depends on these products for anything essential. And if Canada were to build their own local AI to sub in for Chatgpt, Claude and Grok, it would lose tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Worst of all, a national AI strategy does nothing – not one solitary thing – to protect Canada from Trump shutting down our ministries, our companies, or our tractors.
In other words:
If: digital sovereignty + AI = digital sovereignty – AI
Then: AI = 0
If you think AI tools are nifty and want Canada to invest in AI, then first, please stop pretending that this has anything to do with "digital sovereignty." Not only is this a transparent bit of nonsense, it's a dangerous one, because digital sovereignty is a real problem, and AI does nothing to solve it.
If you want a good "national AI strategy," try this: save your money until the bubble bursts, and then buy your GPUs and hire your talent at 10 cents on the dollar and put them to work refining open source models:
Buying AI at the top of the market is nuts. That would be like shopping for Aeron chairs and foosball tables in March 2000. If you just sit tight for a couple months, you'll be able to find bankrupt dotcom entrepreneurs selling these at knock-down prices out front of their formerly overpriced office space in the Mission, in the time-honored tradition of former Wall Street millionaires selling apples out of their Rolls Royces:
https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/323794
(Literally: I bought a "dining room set" of six $1500 Steelcase Leap chairs in the summer of 2000 from a failed dotcom CEO on Van Ness for $25 a piece – still in the original plastic!)
And in the meantime, please let's stop pretending that digital sovereignty has anything to do with "national AI." If Trump takes away your AI, everything is fine. If Trump takes away your iPhones, Office 365 and tractors, your country grinds to a halt. This is just not that complicated:
If: digital sovereignty + AI = digital sovereignty – AI
Then: AI = 0
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
how does Palestinian right of return differ from Jewish aliyah? If diaspora Jews who are settled in another country can come to Israel, why shouldn't Palestinian diaspora be able to do the same?
(I get the demographic dilemma and why Israel doesn't want a ton of Palestinians 'returning', but regardless of that, what is the actual difference here?)
This is much simpler than you think it is, Anon.
Let's start by looking at what a Law of Return is, because Israel isn't even unusual in this.
Many countries have laws granting preferential immigration/citizenship rights to diaspora populations:
Germany (Article 116 of the Basic Law) - ethnic Germans and descendants of those persecuted by the Nazi regime
Greece - ethnic Greeks
Ireland - those with Irish ancestry (grandparent rule)
Italy - those with Italian ancestry (jure sanguinis)
Poland - ethnic Poles
Armenia - ethnic Armenians
Finland - ethnic Finns and Ingrian Finns
Japan - ethnic Japanese (Nikkeijin)
South Korea - ethnic Koreans
China - ethnic Chinese
Portugal - Sephardic Jews
Hungary - ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries
Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria - their respective ethnic populations abroad
So Ireland, for example, has decided that a foreigner of Irish descent "with a grandparent born on the island of Ireland can claim Irish nationality by enrollment in the Foreign Births Register. Additionally, the law permits the Minister of Justice to waive the residency requirements for naturalization for a person of 'Irish descent or Irish associations'."
What Ireland cannot do, though, is grant foreigners with an Irish grandparent the right to emigrate to the United Kingdom, France, Taiwan, or Saudi Arabia - because those are their own sovereign nations which set their own emigration policy.
Similarly, Israel enacted the Law of Return in 1950, giving people of Jewish ancestry (at least one Jewish grandparent) "...and their spouses the right to immigrate to and settle in Israel and obtain citizenship, and obliges the Israeli government to facilitate their immigration.
What Israel canoot do, however, is grant Jews the right to emigrate to Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Germany, or Thailand - because those are their own sovereign nations which set their own emigration policy.
If Palestinians establish a state, they could absolutely implement their own Law of Return for Palestinians to immigrate to Palestine. This would be their sovereign right, just like it is for other nations.
What they couldn't do, however, is grant people the right emigrate to Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, France, or Russia - because those are their own sovereign nations which set their own emigration policies.
A state can grant people the right to immigrate TO that state, but cannot grant people the right to immigrate to a DIFFERENT state.
That's not a "right of return," that's a demand for another country to accept your population, which no state can unilaterally impose on another sovereign nation.
No other people on earth demands this as Palestinians do. No other nation is expected to regard this absurd demand as something other than absurd.
This just isn't how sovereignty and immigration law actually work and it only seems reasonable or plausible to you because you've heard it repeated endlessly as though it isn't completely insane.
Partition happened between India and Pakistan. Do people in either nation claim a right of return to the nation on the other side of their border? No, because they all know that's a ridiculous idea.
The "Right of Return" isn't a refugee claim, its an effort to destroy Israel. It's an obstacle to peace because Palestinians still cling to the hope that Israel is going to disappear....but it isn't. Palestinians are the only people in the world consciously and deliberately kept in a permanenet state of refugee status for this explicit purpose, that's what UNRWA is for.
Nobody has a right of return to someone else's sovereign country. That's the difference, Anon.
If you'd like to know more, check out Einat Wilf and Adi Schwartz's "The War of Return."
Needing community/friends/networking - Being independent is a necessary lifeskill as a marginalised person. Contrary to popular belief; love, acceptance, empathy, and compassion are limited resources and just like all other limited resources most of it goes to the top while the bottom are left fighting for scraps which is often futile. People push pro community/socialising propaganda to make you vulnerable to tolerating abuse for the sake of belonging. If something truly benefitted you it wouldn't be pushed so aggressively, I've made a long post on community propaganda before but you do not need community esp as a marginalised person. You wont be helped, you'll be burned & sacrificed to keep the rest warm. This isn't to say be recluse & don't talk to anyone (even tho i lean towards this tbh), but I don't get attached. Because of this, attention = red flag for me because it can be easier to fall for bad actors when they give a certain level of attention to me.
Dating in fear of retaliation of mass rapes & murder - I've spoken on this topic a lot but I wont be fearmongered into being a sacrifical lamb for society. With xys the cruelty is the point, nothing you do is ever good enough but hey if people want to go ahead I wont dissuade them but I won't be taking part either. The best thing about being sovereign is that you only need yourself to get started.
Giving maIes a chance because "not all men" - not just romantically but "friendly" too. It is every goddamn y chromosome haver. Ties into the point above but I'm not wasting my time or sacrificing my sanity to pacify other people's egos. I have to watch out for me period & it's much safer for me to not give them a chance given what they're capable of.
High empathy being a good thing - say what you want but the truth is those who are happy, have a ton of resources & get what they want in life exhibit a level of sociopathy or at least they don't have a high level of empathy. People who are highly empathetic are either naive & fall for so much abuse or they're manipulative. As a HSP I've had to brute force learn to reduce my empathy for others because as I empathise they strategise against me. People you empathise with today will hurt you tomorrow if they could. Guard empathy, too much of everything is bad.
Believing reproduction is a purpose for all - natalist propaganda to keep this horrendous cycle going. Just because i can doesn't mean i have to. I'm glad I'm a human in the west & have been able to make it to a point of conscious to see the world for what it is and refuse to have children. There's greater purpose to living beyond reproducing but it doesn't serve those on top.
Women supporting women - This bs rose in the 2010s feminism when it was pointed out how horribly women treat each other but broken clocks are right twice a day. Say what you want regarding blackpillers words about women online but the average woman hates women more than several blackpillers do. Women do not support each other, when they have power they'd use it against other women. The average woman will happily use & sell out another women. Several women engage in trafficking other women + their kids & use the whole "women are more innocent" line to their advantage to undercut others. I bought into the koolaid of always supporting & trusting women many years ago -the modern day girls girl- and I got burned. With misogyny/patriarchy, it's not a black & white situation of man bad woman good, it's a lot more nuanced than that. Women aren't as innocent as often portrayed and women are snakes that do not support other women. Of course it's not all of them but that goes back to my point on nuance here. I'm more discerning of others on an individual level now.
Believing women are more empathetic - they're not, above point also applies here but I saw someone here mention that if you believe women are empathetic just be honest with them and that sent shockwaves through me because of how real that was. Spoiler: you'll see just how unempathetic women are. Womens "empathy" mostly extends to maIes, some have called it sociopathic empathy where they empathise with xy degeneracy but I just see it as trash supporting trash.
Educating people about how harmful their actions/beliefs are or how marginalised people suffer in society to change them - it's a waste of time. They know, they don't care, and in most cases they enjoy it. True naivety is rare, people are smarter & more aware than they let on. MaIes aren't oblivious to the suffering women go through under them due to their actions or why women take the precautions they do, white people aren't blind to how being a racial minority significantly impacts your life no matter how hard you try, women aren't unaware of misogyny & feminism; they don't need to read radical feminist theory to understand the way things work they just don't care too. A lot of women & feminists adopt a saviour complex where they feel like with enough education/arguments they can change people's minds but you're not going to outreason privilege/comfort from people. That only goes away with force/consequences. This also applies to interpersonal engagements too.
The world being controlled by a handful of elites or that a particular system is the problem - What the elites do on a higher level is just scandalous when it's publicised, the average person does the same if not worst to others all the time. If humans REALLY wanted things to be different they would be by now. No system is better than the other; there will always be a hierarchy with an underclass being abused. The current systems in place reflect the average humans greed & love for abuse. Poverty & suffering is not a virtue, the only thing that stops the average person from being crueler is being overpowered by another force.
