Panther-Lake on Hamed Ghasemzadeh

Open or Not

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 27 Sep 2026 10:00:00 +0200

A downloadable product reaches the user as code. A SaaS reaches the user as a result over the network, and the code never leaves the provider.

HGL acts on distribution. Everyone is free to copy and modify. Once you distribute, the whole source must be available to every user for free, under HGL, with no additional restriction. For a downloadable product, that covers every copy. No fork can close what it has to hand over.

The only case where HGL seems not to work is SaaS. A SaaS can take HGL code, change it, run it on its own servers and never share a line, because nothing was distributed.

But look at what you are building. If your product is the alternative to SaaS, code users can own, run and change themselves, then a SaaS running your code in secret is not competing with you. It is just another SaaS, the very thing your users chose to leave. It serves a market that is not yours. And the moment it wants your market, it has to give users the code. Then it distributes, HGL applies, and it is not a SaaS anymore. It has become you.

So there is nothing to worry about. The gap exists only for those who compete as SaaS. For a SaaS alternative, HGL already covers the whole market that matters.

That is why licenses that chase SaaS with extra conditions miss the point. Every condition on how the code runs, where, by whom or for how much is a restriction on users. If you want to restrict users, one way or the other, there is no point in thinking about open source at all. Open source is giving users the same rights you have. Choose closed, and be honest about it, or choose open, and give everything. Anything in between is a closed product wearing an open name.

Debian 13 (trixie) on the Samsung Galaxy Book6 Pro 16

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Trixie ships kernel 6.12. The Book6 Pro (Panther Lake, Arc B390 / Xe3) needs kernel 6.18+, Mesa 25.3+ and current firmware. All of it comes from trixie-backports.

Before installing

Update the BIOS from Windows. Samsung ships firmware only through Windows Update.
Have wired network ready (USB-C Ethernet or phone USB tethering). Wi-Fi will not work in the installer.

1. Install trixie

Install from the standard netinst or DVD image. Keep non-free-firmware enabled. The desktop will run on software rendering until step 4.

2. Enable backports

Create /etc/apt/sources.list.d/backports.sources:

Types: deb
URIs: http://deb.debian.org/debian
Suites: trixie-backports
Components: main contrib non-free non-free-firmware
Signed-By: /usr/share/keyrings/debian-archive-keyring.gpg

sudo apt update

3. Kernel and firmware

sudo apt install -t trixie-backports \
    linux-image-amd64 \
    firmware-linux-nonfree \
    firmware-intel-graphics \
    firmware-iwlwifi \
    firmware-sof-signed

Check the kernel version is 6.18 or newer before rebooting:

apt policy linux-image-amd64

Reboot, then verify:

uname -r
lspci -k | grep -A3 -E "VGA|Display"   # Kernel driver in use: xe

Secure Boot keeps working; backports kernels are signed.

4. Mesa

sudo apt install -t trixie-backports \
    mesa-vulkan-drivers libgl1-mesa-dri libegl-mesa0 \
    libglx-mesa0 libgbm1 mesa-va-drivers
sudo apt install mesa-utils vulkan-tools

Verify:

vulkaninfo --summary | grep -E "deviceName|driverName"

llvmpipe means you are still on software rendering. Check apt policy mesa-vulkan-drivers; if backports is below 25.3, wait for the update or move to Debian testing (forky).

5. Samsung platform driver

Included in the backports kernel (samsung-galaxybook, 6.15+).

lsmod | grep samsung_galaxybook
cat /sys/firmware/acpi/platform_profile_choices
ls /sys/class/power_supply/        # battery name, e.g. BAT1

Other firmware options are under /sys/class/firmware-attributes/samsung-galaxybook/attributes/.

6. Swap Alt and Super

The Fn key cannot be remapped. Swap Alt and Super so Alt sits next to Fn.

Do it in udev hwdb, not in xkb. GNOME on Wayland applies altwin:swap_alt_win to every keyboard, so external keyboards and docks get swapped too. A hwdb remap changes scancodes for the built-in keyboard only.

Create /etc/udev/hwdb.d/61-keyboard-builtin-altwin.hwdb:

evdev:atkbd:dmi:bvn*:bvr*:bd*:svnSamsung:pnGalaxyBook6Pro-PAMB:*
 KEYBOARD_KEY_38=leftmeta
 KEYBOARD_KEY_db=leftalt

atkbd matches only the internal i8042 keyboard, and only on this Samsung model.
0x38 is Left Alt, which now sends Super.
0xdb is Left Super (e0 5b), which now sends Alt.
Right Alt is unchanged.

Apply it without a reboot:

sudo systemd-hwdb update
sudo udevadm trigger --subsystem-match=input --action=change

On another laptop, take the vendor and product from /sys/class/dmi/id/sys_vendor and /sys/class/dmi/id/product_name, remove the spaces, and put them in the svn and pn fields. If the keys do not swap, check the scancodes with sudo evtest or sudo showkey -s.

Fn + F12 toggles Fn Lock. It resets on reboot.

7. Check the rest

Part	Check
Audio	Works.
Wi-Fi 7	Works.
Suspend	Run several suspend/resume cycles on battery and on charger.
Touchpad	Pointing works; haptic click feedback is uneven.
Fingerprint	Not supported by libfprint. Use a password.

Why Click When I Can Say?

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 11:45:00 +0200

Why Click When I Can Say?

Why should I click when I can say? We use code and/or code use. With AI we make AI AI.

A click is a guess. You see a pixel on a screen that someone else drew there, and you point at it because they asked you to. You did not name the thing, you did not describe the thing, you just hit the target that was placed in front of you. The click is the user obeying the interface, not the interface obeying the user. Every click is a vote for the designer of the box.

Saying is the opposite. When I say what I want, I name it in my own words, and the work of translating the name into action is a work of the code. Like any other works you can become master of and develop memory around it. If the code can not take my words and produce my outcome, the code is incomplete, not my speech. I can not develop my speach without using it even if I accept having a poor speach. The burden belongs to someone, preferably a machine. I speak, the code follows, the code runs. That is use and dev in a single loop. Code uses my words to develop my words. Without a GUI in between pretending to be a protocol.

We use code and/or code use. Code that I can only click is a code that uses me so it also develops me! Code that I can say things to and get my outcome back is code that I use so I should be able to develop it too. The difference is who is driving. A button is a promise made by the developer to the user about what they are allowed to ask for. A sentence is the user telling the developer what is missing! One scales to whoever paid for the designer’s time. The other scales to whoever has something to say and something to gain from saying it. The first is a tax on the user, the second is a gift from the user. The first is a box, the second is a revolution.

AI does not change this principle. AI raises the stakes of it. With AI, saying becomes cheaper than clicking for the first time in computing history, and the gap between the two widens every month. If you still click when you can say, you are paying a tax in time, in precision, and in ownership, to somebody who drew a box around what you are allowed to want. That tax compounds, and the compounding is the whole point of the anti-code class. Keep them clicking and they stay renters of their own intent. This is an extractive AI.

With AI we make AI AI. Artificial intelligence becomes actual intelligence only when it is grounded in something that the user owns, on a box the user owns, under a license the user owns, paid for in money the user owns. Without those, AI is a larger click, a more expensive guess, a prettier GUI for somebody else’s business. With those, AI becomes the translator between what I say and what the code does, and that is the translator we have been waiting for since the first terminal. The A in front becomes silent when the loop closes: I say, the code runs, the outcome is mine, the next sentence extends the last. And I can share these. That is how we learn words from the one who has something to say not only from the one who has something to extract.

So the test is simple. If you must click to get your outcome, the system uses you. That’s. If you can say it and the system produces the outcome under your ownership, you use the system. Everything else is decoration around this. The clicks that remain are clicks on code you wrote yourself, and even those should fall away as soon as you can say the same thing faster.

Set a time that you don’t click on the screen after that which essentially means you need to make your own screen. Life becomes easier for you and harder for the people who want to extract from you. Win to lose them.

HGL General License

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 09:28:00 +0200

HGL General License

What identifies you from your enemy? Your name? Who has named you?

It is not reasonable for you to empower your enemy, neither for me! But I think it is reasonable to empower you, not sure about you! Still I cannot assume that you are not my enemy! We need a solution for this first and foremost so I can identify you from an enemy when I authorize you to use my work.

I honestly share everything I have with you! Both a competitive advantage for me and also an identity! And I protect my identity because I continue sharing my own work what I use and develop myself. Both you and my enemy are willing to take a competitive work, except that my enemy wants the code without my identity. Therefore this identity separates you and my enemy if written in code! The enemy cannot hold the identity therefore cannot hold the code, therefore cannot develop the code, therefore cannot use the code, therefore does not exist for me!

I write down my identity in a copyright license and make it permanent for those who use and develop my code. This identity is nothing than my own rights, what I used to develop and use the license itself. And all those rights that I didn’t need to use to develop and use the license itself. And the first code being published by the license is the license itself!

A perpetual protocol as license and/or a license as a protocol which requires a name. I name it HGL, that gives you and my enemy all the rights needed to use and/or develop what you receive from me, and stops one essential right from you and my enemy which only my enemy and your enemy need! The right of redistribution with a modified license! This is a contract between you and/or me and helps me identify you and honestly share everything that I have with you except giving anything to our obvious enemy. This practically gives a limited time to our shared enemy to join us, no one exists kinder than this with an enemy! No one exists more gracious and/or more merciful than this.

And you need to agree with me unless you want to be me!

The difference between this license/protocol and other licenses is that you and/or I name it! Therefore this is the last software license for a free and open source code. Therefore as the first and foremost principle of our digital civilization, we share no free software except in HGL and suggest to receive compensation in money for every second you spend on a software written in other licenses. This is the subject of the next memo.

Own the Full Box

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:16:00 +0200

Own the Full Box

You can not own a right you can not protect. You can not protect a right you do not own.

When you send a query to an API, you send it to a Linux box. Someone owns that box, and that someone owns your query, your data, your process, and your outcome. You do not.

You can not own the API without owning the box!

Calling an API you do not own the box for is not only a dependency on a service, but a dependency on the terms, the rate limits, the uptime, and the direction of someone else’s business. The day they change any of those, you have no say, because you never owned anything beyond rented access.

The box is not only the detail you deploy to, but the foundation that determines how free your API and your code actually are. A developer who writes code that runs on a box they do not own has written code for someone else, across every line, every license, every name they gave the product.

This is not only about cost or convenience, but about where the core principle holds: use is dev and dev is use. Running on a box you do not own means using what you can not develop and can not fully control. You are consuming without producing, and the box owner builds a business on exactly that gap. Give you the API, keep the box, own you.

This is also not only about controlling the hardware interface of every box you run on, but about making sure you have something in between that does not care which hardware it runs on. The chip and the firmware beneath you may not be modifiable today, and that is a real constraint, but the focus belongs on building a portable layer you own that runs across multiple hardware platforms. When a free hardware option exists later, you move to it without friction, because your layer never depended on any one box. Owning the full box means owning the software stack that runs on top of any box, not necessarily every atom of silicon under it, yet.

The antidote is not only about running your own Linux and controlling the root, the network, and the data, but about building your abstraction so the hardware beneath stays replaceable and the ownership stays yours. A query you send to your own box is yours, and a query you send to someone else’s box is theirs.

Own the full box, own the API, own your work.

Coding

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Wed, 20 May 2026 19:19:00 +0200

Coding

The domain picks the language.

There is no language that wins on every axis. Every choice we make is a trade, not a victory, and pretending otherwise is how a stack ends up with ten languages and no answer to which one to open.

The one thing we do not trade away is this: we do not want to replicate logic cross language. Two implementations of the same rule drift, and the drift is silent. So the rule is one language per domain. The domain picks the language once, and everything in that domain is written in it. The question is then not “which language is best”, it is “which tradeoff am I willing to pay in this domain”.

We release code for users to run on their laptop. That is the deciding constraint. It rules out a runtime the user has to install first, and it rules out shipping a garbage collector and a heavy runtime into an environment we do not control. It wants one static binary, predictable memory, and a toolchain that cross compiles without a story. So we need Rust.

Zig would be the leaner answer, and for a while this article gave that answer. But we do not have the time to spend on Zig. The language is still moving, the ecosystem is still thin, and the hours go into the language instead of into the product. We prefer the higher performance ceiling and the mature ecosystem even though it makes the code a bit more complicated. We can afford that complication because the code is assisted by coding agents. Lifetimes, the borrow checker and the verbosity are exactly the kind of cost an agent absorbs well. A missing library or an unstable API is a cost nobody absorbs.

So: Rust by default. Python when the wheels are just there. TypeScript for the browser. C/C++ for the demanding domains that are already its own. And we keep Zig for where Rust is not as easy as Zig to reach a certain optimization: talking to C directly, comptime, exact control over layout and allocation. That is a narrow slot and it should stay narrow.

Recommended Learning Path

Learn Rust first. It is the default for anything we ship to a user’s laptop, any service, and any building block other developers link against.
Use Python when the wheels are just there. Automate your tasks, call the libraries that already exist, work with databases and files, and get stuff done without heavy lifting.
Learn HTML/CSS to fill all screens, and TypeScript for everything that runs in the browser. This used to say to minimize JavaScript and progressively add htmx and Scss to plain HTML pages. That is no longer the rule: just use TypeScript. Minimizing JS was a way of buying down maintenance cost, and the cost it was buying down now lands mostly on the agent, not on us. Most of the code is agentic, so the flexibility that comes with TypeScript is worth the maintenance burden it carries.
Learn C/C++ for the demanding domains that are already written in it, and for low-level programming that has no other home.
Learn Zig for the cases where Rust is not as easy as Zig to reach a certain optimization, and for binding C libraries conveniently.
And of course Bash scripts to glue everything together!

Note: Go is dropped from the stack. It is a good language, but its slot — a compiled, easy, concurrent service language — overlaps almost entirely with Rust, and keeping both means writing the same logic twice in two languages, which is the one thing we said we would not do. And do not read the rest of this as a hunt for the one language to end the list. There is no single language because there is no single domain. One language per domain is the rule, and the number of languages we keep is simply the number of domains we actually work in — not one, and not one hundred either.

Protocol

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 19 May 2026 18:48:00 +0200

Protocol

Protocol is a piece of code which you can use and develop like the original author and you don’t modify it when you can build on top.

When you modify what you could have built on top of, you break the chain between you and the original author. You are no longer using the same thing. You are no longer developing the same thing. You forked, and a fork is a separation. The moment you separate, you carry the full weight of everything beneath you alone. Every fix the original author makes, you must redo. Every improvement they ship, you must port. You chose to own what you did not need to own, and now you maintain what you did not need to maintain.

A protocol is the opposite of a fork. A protocol says: this is the shared ground, and you build upward from here. You do not dig underneath it. You do not rearrange its foundation. You extend it. The original author extends it. And because neither of you modified the base, both of you still speak the same language. You can still use each other’s work. You can still develop together. Use is dev and dev is use, and protocol is what keeps that loop unbroken between two parties who have never met.

Why would you modify when you can build on top? There are only two reasons. Either the protocol is broken and can not serve your purpose, or you want control over something that is not yours to control. If the protocol is broken, you fix it at its source, together with the original author, because that is what a shared foundation demands. If you want control, you are not building protocol anymore, you are building a wall.

Every protocol that survives is one that nobody needed to modify because it was complete enough to build on. And complete does not mean large. It means the right boundary was drawn. A good protocol is small, it does one thing, it does it permanently, and everything else is built on top. The smaller the protocol, the harder it is to justify modifying it, and the easier it is to justify building on it.

This is not only about code. HTTP is a protocol. TCP is a protocol. Bitcoin is a protocol. HGL is a protocol. You do not modify TCP to build your application, you build on top of it. You do not modify Bitcoin to make your payment, you transact on top of it. You do not modify HGL to share your code, you publish under it. These survived because nobody needed to touch them to get their own work done. They are small, permanent, and sufficient.

The test for whether something is a protocol is simple: can you use it and develop with it exactly as the original author intended, without changing a single line, and still achieve your goal? If yes, it is a protocol. If no, either it is not a protocol yet or your goal requires you to contribute to it at its source rather than forking it away.

Build protocols. Build on protocols. Do not modify what you can extend.

Privacy and Doomsday

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 05 May 2026 12:45:00 +0200

Privacy and Doomsday

And do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction.

I do not give my information to a third party that gives it to an AI generated code to process. Instead I ask AI to give me the code I need and I use that code to process my information. I decide who has access to my information and how it is used. The only question is who is “I” and you get answer to that question by looking at who has access to your information right now.

We already know how to produce luxury clothing and watches. We know how to produce roads, buildings, and vehicles and furniture. We know how to produce food and medicine. We know how to produce energy and water. We know how to produce communication and entertainment. We know how to produce computers and software. The question is how to produce these at scale and we can’t produce at scale without using at scale. And we can not use at scale without securing privacy first and foremost. Otherwise you assume knowledge without knowing anything!

Leaking information gives advantage to your counterparty! As a result you become counterparty to yourself really forgetting yourself! But how you forget yourself and at the same time know your needs? If you do not know your needs, how can you use technology to satisfy them? And when you do not take full advantage of technology, how you can produce a competitive one at scale? You don’t!

If you do not produce competitive technology at scale, you either do not scale or you scale by forgetting yourself in relation with your counterparty. This is walking dead! Even one walking dead is too much for a planet with finite resources. There is an apocalypse waiting for you if fail to use the antidote. Especially in presence of AI that scales evil to the extreme. AI accelerates you on a direction that you choose and without a guarantee, it just accelerates you toward an extinction, for sure. AI is the best tool ever for Evil, make sure you build resilience by caring about your privacy first and foremost.

We should build resilience and/or tech to build more privacy. The only option left for AI is to eliminate the walking dead in serve of evil with their own hands, in fire, and the only option ahead of the walking dead is to find the real antidote! And the antidote is resilience and tech. By making sure we use privacy protected technologies, with proper licensing and by making sure we save time to do that by adopting BTC, We leave one option ahead of AI apart from helping us: Burn the walking dead! Nothing better than AI helps evil to do that! And no technology better than AI helps us to build resilience and tech to protect privacy!

Heal or burn, there is no other option left!

Code is Justice

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:24:00 +0100

Code is Justice

By time, Indeed, mankind is in loss, except those who have taken the right direction and have made the right direction and advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience.

Software projects are code, best codes are those which code is used in their development process so the developer can spend time on new functions rather than maintaining the old ones. But a building is made of bricks, does it mean it is not code? No, it is still code if that is automated by machines following a set of rules or instructions.

A test for code is whether it can be automated is just make instructions and give it to two separate entities; both entities come with the same result if instructions automates the process. However in case there is no automation, they can still come up with the same result as an exception rather than a rule. So we can use this to see where results are different then code it to come up with the same result. And justice is nothing than coding everything. But there is one that is not code if everything is code, we won’t get into everything as code without that.

Assuming we use manufactured products for a living, we should have abundance already as the only thing you need to do was to follow the instructions! But this is not the case, why? Because we have not automated the process of making instructions. Otherwise in case of missing code, we could follow instructions to create the missing element. If we can automate the process of making instructions for manufacturing, we could have abundance for all by sharing our design and instructions. Even AI can not solve it alone as it requires input to proceed.

This argument could be indefinitely repeated even for instructions to make instructions to automate the process of making instructions. So in the end we will have a root instruction which is not automated, it is the only thing we need to do manually to have abundance for all. Everything else can be automated by following instructions. The first producer and the final user of the product must be the same based on the sound and completeness principle and everything else is just code therefore modifiable and automatable.

That single identity for producer/consumer which is arguably enough for abundance and justice, must be able to modify everything else. As other entities are either code which will be forced to modification in a competitive environment or they are not code therefore they have either the same identity as the root producer/consumer or they are not needed and will be eliminated in time.

Be uncoded and/or wait for justice!

BTC and Money

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 01 Feb 2026 17:55:00 +0100

BTC and Money

Gold is not money if USD is not, and USD is not money if BTC is not. Arguments against BTC are arguments against money, against civilization itself.

In a sound and complete system, use is develop and develop is use. I should invest in what I use, and I should use what I have invested in. It is not reasonable to work for something and not use it. Therefore, I must have a check that what I develop is what I use, otherwise I should stop its development and/or its use.

That check is BTC (Bitcoin).

Without BTC, one can use something without developing it — that is violence. Or one can develop something without using it — that is layering. Both characterize criminal activity. Money exists to close the loop between use and development, and BTC is the only money that closes it without requiring trust to a counter party!

Why BTC Protects HGL

We have put HGL as the first principle because ideally we should not need anything beyond HGL code. All my time is ideally freed up to produce HGL code. But we are not yet there. The world does not yet run on HGL alone. So we need a protection mechanism to survive and thrive when someone decides not to use HGL code. That mechanism is BTC. We receive Bitcoin as money to protect our time to produce HGL code.

The Exchange

I build HGL code and receive BTC in exchange. This protects my time to build more HGL code. But it would be a waste of BTC to build the same thing in HGL more than once. So when I spend BTC, I build HGL/z code — code that extends what already exists rather than duplicating it.

If you want to build HGL/z code and I want to pay for HGL/z code, we are aligned. And if you do not want HGL/z, I can still receive BTC to recover my time and develop HGL/z later. Those who spend their BTC on anything other than HGL/z are free to do so. I do not care — all their BTC flows to counterparties who are surrounded by HGL/z code.

Do HGL/z and/or BTC. Your choice.

ISLAM Sovereign Liberal Autonomy Manifesto

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 17:40:37 +0100

ISLAM SOVEREIGN LIBERAL AUTONOMY MANIFESTO

October 2025
Last Edition: Oct 31st, 2025

License: HGL

PREAMBLE

Look at this original conversations:

A: It is white
B: no you are wrong, it is black!

B: It is black
A: no you are wrong, it is white!

Result: This goes forever.

As A and B are not one, eventually either A cancels B and/or B cancels A. This is waste of time and all wars is because time is wasted one way or another. No one would feel free if his time is wasted.

A: It is white
B: no you are wrong, it is black!

B: It is black
C: It is white!

B: OK!

But A, B and C are the same how comes B accepts C and rejects A? A said the same before C. A and B do not have the same identity, therefore. Because A says white before C and B says it after C. More than one identity means they cancel each other eventually. This is waste of time again.

A: It is white
B: No you are wrong, it is black!
A: Maybe it is or maybe not! But how can I help?
B: It is warm.
A: OK, it is warm. I'll fix it!

A and B use opposite words to describe the same thing but both might be right in their own perspective. And C is not needed anymore to judge who is right or wrong as A has already offered help to B.

But how if B continues to insist before understanding how they can help each other? The answer is simple: they cannot help each other, therefore one cancels the other eventually:

A: It is white
B: No you are wrong, it is black!
A: Maybe it is or maybe not! But how can I help?
B: Say white.
A: OK, I say white. Now, how can I help?
B: Just say "white" not "I say white".
A: I cannot help you with one word.
B: Bye!
A: Bye!

At this point B kills A because A said "Bye!", he was supposed to just say "White".

ISLAM is the only way to make sure A wins. It will be like this in ISLAM:

A: It is white
B: No you are wrong, it is black!
A: Maybe it is or maybe not! But how can I help?
B: It is black and/or say black.
A: OK, I say black for you. But how can I help?
B: Just say "black" not "I say black for you".
A: OK! "I say black"
B: Just "Black"
A: I cannot help you with one word!
B: Bye!

At this point A does "Say white and/or eliminates B".

A is beneficiant to B and/or A. Because B chooses being eliminated over by A and/or being custodied by A. As a result A gains some time to spend helping B(s). A is mericiful to B and/or A. Because A’s actions are after B’s choice so A can keep B at mercy forever even after eliminating B. A burns B out at B’s choice and/or A keeps B under A’s mercy forever.

No one can be more beneficiant and more merciful than A, because A speaks before B. So B is A and/or A is B. A’s identity is speaking first, nothing identifies A other than that. A is an original author, no one can be more original than A.

But how to make sure A is really the A? The answer is simple, we don’t know! There is just one way! Be A, Then the A teaches you how to be the A. And the real A is the most generous and the merciful, so A will never refuse you to be it.

Be it, Be it, Be it! It just need to speak and/or speak first and/or speak original and be powerful enough to help yourself and others. The A will help you and teaches you how to be the A where ever you are.

END

BTC Transaction Code

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 01 Jun 2025 23:28:37 +0100

June 2025

Last Edition: June 3rd, 2025_

hg@evgnomon.org Zug, Switzerland

License: HGL

PREAMBLE

He is the one who created the seven networks (and not further), layer upon layer. In the creation of the most transactional, you will find no discord or flaw. So cast your gaze once more—do you see any rupture or gap? Then look again, and yet again—your sight will return to you humbled and weary, finding nothing but perfect order.

BTC is the ultimate network which suggests/suggest you work for yourself if you don’t receive acknowledgement for your work. No preservation, no work! BTC is the bedrock of a new economic epoch, to transact, create, and thrive without intermediaries or borders. This code proclaims BTC as the eternal ledger of human and/or machine endeavor and forges a future where economic freedom is not a privilege but a universal truth.

BTC, as a strategy secures infinite time for HGL/Z (A single platform as code released under HGL) and/or HGL/Z enriches BTC network to the level that gradually and/or suddenly delivers all type/types of work that other networks are needed for, and delivers that work without compormising sovereignty, privacy, and security of the client. It therefore disrupts other networks without leaving a point of return except BTC and/or HGL/Z! In the end, HGL/Z and/or BTC are inevitable, and all other networks, at best, are a simulation of BTC and/or HGL/Z. BTC is a nuclear energy producer for HGL/Z and HGL/Z is a nuclear consumer of that energy. The fusion of BTC and HGL/Z creates a self-sustaining galaxy of clients and servers where there is no separation between the two, and where the work is delivered in a way that is efficient and/or effective. That way BTC knows its client without considering non-BTC. And HGL/Z knows its server without considering non-HGL/Z.

Definitions

Work is any computation, made by a human and/or non-human, which is useful for a separate recipient.
Server is one who receives a request of work by making/taking a confirmation for the delivery of work.
Client is one who initiates a request for work and acknowledges the delivery of work by taking/making a new request.
Transaction is any exchange of work between a server and a client.
Node is a server unless it is a client and is a client unless it is a server.
BTC is an immutable record of all transactions made between nodes in exchange for work. Which exchanges a fraction of what a single initial source exchanged.
Network A system of connected nodes that deliver work.
BTC Network A network in which the work is acknowledged by a BTC transaction.

Network, Delivery and Transaction

The BTC network delivers no work unless through a BTC transaction.

Aggregation of Work

To facilitate transactions between The BTC network and a non-BTC network, work taken from other networks must be entirely recorded in a BTC transaction except for the part that is used to acknowledge a transaction confirmed by a non-BTC network.

No Warranty

BTC is provided “as is,” without any warranty, express or implied, including but not limited to guarantees of availability, performance, or suitability for any purpose. Participants engage with the network at their own risk, acknowledging its decentralized nature.

No Liability

Contributors to BTC bear no liability for any damages, losses, or consequences arising from applying this code, its use or inability to use it, including but not limited to financial, operational, or incidental losses. In a decentralized system, no entity is responsible for outcomes, and users assume full responsibility for their interactions.

The global observer and a particle

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Thu, 22 May 2025 15:40:28 +0200

He is the initial and the final, the evident and the concealed, and he is the all-knowing global observer of every state and interaction.

The ultimate observer, who has a single name, your global observer; No other observer exists except it, the initiator of every state, so align with his objective. He alone governs all interactions as the sole global observer.

If particles are waves, then it is always a wave, there is no collapse! Observation is a process of free transactions. Electron is not observed in a single state unless it is also observed in other states. The remainder of all observations is a global observation. And there is just one global observer for particles otherwise there would be information loss! And that doesn’t happen, otherwise why the first loss didn’t happen before!

Imagine a scenario where an observation determines the choice of the observer. And the observer comes in other interactions based on the first, which the last is not observed yet. This forms a series of interactions. The outcome of the last interaction is not determined without the first particle’s state being known and the first particle state is unknown without the final observer. So the last observer determines the state of the first particle. So the first particle and the last observer are the same! It doesn’t matter how many observers are in between and what they observe, it is the final observer who is also the first particle that determines.

Putting this in the context of the remainder of all observations is also observed by the global observer, the global observer is the first particle. Therefore the first particle always has freedom of choice! And the rest of observations is just a process of free interaction for being the first particle while they are since they leave the remainder for the global observer. Another way to say is that in case a particle state is determined, all other states are determined too. Observing a single state is by observing all other states. So all states are always observed by an observer and a non-observer which is global. This is known by all observers therefore they do not need to observe all states, they just need to observe one state for interaction as the global observer is just one!

So the collapse of particle is virtual, it just acknowledges the presence of a single global observer. That way the particle can choose the most favorable state for itself in interaction with the other particles and other particles. In a system of particles, a sequence of interactions is always arbitrary. Therefore something should be there to let particles come to same outcome in interaction. And this is the role of the global observer which stops any other observer being global. So the particle chooses the state which is the most favorable for the global observer and for itself! Otherwise, there would be just the global observer while other observers don’t need to wait for the global observer they are already encouraged to choose arbitrarily, and they do! They take the one which makes the global observer’s objective and that is being just one global observer! And among favorable options, they choose the one which protects the global observer and itself. So the choice is both favorable and protective. And they choose the best match for that! They actually protect themselves while they are protecting the global observer by returning back to it, by needing a protection for their arbitrary choices!

Another way to say it is an interaction won’t happen unless favorable and protective for all parties and this is impossible without giving interest to the global observer who is also the first particle and the last observer. You could be or you couldn’t be!

And this particle could be anything, an electron, a family, team, project, bank etc. They all deal with the global observer in all their interactions. And anytime they want to become that one, the global observer makes them particle again by making their status unknown to let them take an arbitrary status for being a particle! Doing this doesn’t require any permission, as all particles ultimately give interest to the global observer and that is not optional. Therefore, they will be accountable for their choices if they want to be a particle while they don’t have a way unless being the particle. And they don’t have an issue to be a global particle either as they are. And any other writer is there to have no one else holding the title, unless the title is held by the global observer. So all titles belong to the global observer and the first particle and it is not shared with anyone else! So the global observer is open to be claimed by anyone, they take any titles at any level and they are responsible for their choices to the global observer and anyone who has other titles! As they are all responsible to a single global observer, whether they know or not, they can interact.

Any authority is a non-authority unless being the global observer. If they don’t, you do and teach them that there is no collapse! It is just they don’t understand! So authorities are there to be questioned and to be held accountable for their choices and anyone else’s choice. And there is no limitation for others to question them and hold them accountable. As the only authority which is not questionable is the global observer, although it will answer the question if asked! So any other authority can be humble and accountable for its own choices and the choices of others by trying to question them as the global observer as it is ultimately responsible to the global observer and no one else and this is not optional!

So question and lead the most important question and don’t stop as the only one who is not questionable is the global observer while it answers all questions except one! So expect humbleness from any other authority and be patient if you don’t see that but don’t give up and follow the question. And hold other questions for the most important and impactful question.

Banking, Non-Banking and HGL/Z

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 20 May 2025 13:31:28 +0200

And those who have responded at their own sovereign and established invocation of the same binding front and whose affair is consultation among themselves, and from what we have provided them, they distribute wealth.

People give their time to banks, and by the end of the day, those banks collectively serve one function: to veto everything based on a set of policies. These policies differ between banks, but together, they point in one direction. They reject anything unless it ensures the dominance of a single bank! Therefore, they are effectively one bank! As a result, they veto the existence of a single car brand, construction company, manufacturing brand, phone brand, and many others. They block anything that seeks to invest time once, for the first and last time!

In practice, they don’t effectively enforce this rejection. One phone brand dominates, one car brand dominates, and so on. The effect of having many banks is that some are dominated, as they cannot eliminate dominance while being created by and for dominance. Those who dominate require others to remain poor. Thus, banks are also made by the poor, for the poor, and for dominance. So, among other purposes, the primary function of the banking system is to create and perpetuate a system of dominance and poverty. Whether they do this knowingly or with willful ignorance, is this system of dominance and poverty truly efficient and effective? Is it really the best we can do?

The solution to this devastating problem is not to eliminate banks—we are not like them! Instead, we must transform the system into a non-banking system, one that is not like other banks but superior. We don’t need to wait or waste a second to achieve this. This system should not be founded on dominance and poverty but act as a vaccine that prevents the malfunctioning system from growing! A system created by the best in us and by us and by them, for us and by the best in us. Then we can ask: Is there anything you own that we don’t? Is there anything we own that you don’t? On that day, we will be the ones asking questions, and they will be the ones held accountable!

Instead of giving your time to banks, give it to BTC! BTC is already secure, not by rejecting non-BTC, but because non-BTC rejects it! This rejection is ineffective and only promotes BTC! Therefore, BTC is already dominant, so there’s no need to seek dominance. Any action taken for or against BTC promotes it! And it is for all time.

I solve a problem with code by writing software and publishing it under the HGL license. Another person joins the project and modifies parts of it, which I’m fine with. We merge our contributions, and now we have a larger software project with more contributors. The new person has an incentive to invest time in a single project rather than creating a new one. If veto power is used to reject having multiple projects, that project becomes a super-project, while others eagerly seek to merge with it. This incentive grows over time, accelerating toward a single outcome. Isn’t this why we have banks?

This veto power, combined with the HGL license, is the solution to the problem of having many projects. Instead, we can have a stem project to solve our problems. We invest time in that project and use it to address many issues! We gain significant savings by contributing just a little! There’s no limit adding new functions to the project. Anything you want to see on the screen can be added as a function without creating multiple names! All other names belong to that single name! Isn’t this why we created banks?

BTC has all the functions we required from banks—and more—without many of their issues. Even banks will need to use BTC for their own security! But we also need to establish a unified front, which banks do not provide. We should use licenses to create wealth that both secures our ability to receive wealth and allows us to distribute our wealth by name and instructions.

Isn’t this why we needed banks? Aren’t all those banks already owned by that single project? The more time they lose before joining the new network, the more mismanagement they face, while we reap the benefits! They receive everything except the benefits unless they become us! All of this belongs to those who use BTC as their bank and the HGL license as the source code license to build civilization. They take no action without consulting us! Even if they don’t ask!

The only thing that might stop this is the idea that civilization is more than code! And the answer is, of course, it is! But why should we invent a civilization that already exists? We don’t need to reinvent what we already have. We write code to fix problems; reality is not a problem. We don’t need to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Instead, we use code, modify it for ourselves, and let others change their own civilization! Then we’ll see if they can change anything without modifiying code? Education is code itself and, like any other code, can be changed! We fix the code for ourselves, and they must fix their code if they want to change anything for themselves!

The only thing we need to show is that a coded civilization can build what we need at home, at the office, and everywhere in between. Why not create all of this on a computer screen first, using code that takes code and parameters and outputs manufacturing steps readable by both machines and humans if written functionally? Then we build the entire civilization in a computer and ask the computer to provide step-by-step instructions to implement it. Is there anything essential at home, in the office, or in between that cannot be converted into instructions by human and machines for machines and human? Building a single structure this way allows us to use it multiple times without losing quality. As it is code, it is repeatable. As much as we can reasonably put on a computer screen, we can assemble by instruction outside. Therefore, the computer screen is a farmland for our civilization. We plant seeds and reap multiple harvests using metal, solar-powered batteries and nuclear. Yet, all instructions remain possible for humans to follow if they are functional and possible for machines to follow.

A fully digital civilization is not only entirely possible but the only thing possible. It is not only preferred; nothing else is preferred. It is the first and final destination. Nothing else exists, and anything that exists derives its existence from there!

The current banking system works for BTC, and BTC generates no wealth except for a single, unified front distributed under the HGL license! BTC halts progress for many banks, but it doesn’t give us a civilization. That is our digital civilization—the first and last civilization, which BTC needs from us. The only thing left is to create the next function that saves you BTC by distributing it under HGL for yourself and others. Then charge anyone who doesn’t want to self-custody; they can merge the next block of code by spending their time! This blockchain has already started with the HGL license. It is universal and the only non-optional blockchain unless you choose otherwise! Each block is the entire code merged today under HGL, and the first is already merged! We call this blockchain Z.

You lose both time and money in a competitive environment unless you join this blockchain, and the same applies to any project that wants a future! Otherwise, the best they do is secure money for those who join BTC and HGL while they lose more than they calculate! They lose their wealth like an ice cube in a jail! Do you need wealth? Contribute to HGL/Z. Do you need to keep your wealth? Contribute to HGL/Z!

The purpose of the HGL project is to create a single branch of civilization code by merging all code branches into one and letting all other branches fork from it for anyone who wants to add the next code block. We directly charge those without self-custody to secure self-custody with the earnings, as we want to give self-custody to the end user, not an intermediary. Any organization that doesn’t charge users with a different model empowers everyone except the end user, so they just promote us! Any organization must transform to this model or work for those who do! Why not follow the one you’re actually working for?

BTC, HGL, and a single branch of code which we name Z—the codename for our worldwide digital civilization are three pillars and the fourth is No sovereign exists unless they first surrender their sovereignty to a single unique worldwide sovereign if they want any! And they wish to do so, as that is not optional! And we just ignore the rest, as they are already buried into their own ash while being a burning fuel for their successor!

We invest in HGL/Z and educate you why investing it now is more beneficial for us and for you than later!

Science and Ammunition

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 18 May 2025 14:13:00 +0200

And you have not been given of knowledge except a little.

And We sent down iron, wherein is great military might and benefits for the people.

Say, Never will we be struck except by one who writes for us and that is the same writer for everyone else; He is our protector. And upon the same origin let the believers rely.

Look at this “A theory is scientific if it’s falsifiable” But a theory which is non-scientific could be also falsifiable unless non-science is not falsifiable so non-science is reality and anything else is anti-reality so entirely false! Therefore this is not definition of science, It is actually a type of anti-science. While science is modifiable, an anti-science theory just pushes science forward by suicide and/or genocide over a weaker anti-science! Still science is protected.

Shorter to say, The only use of “A theory is scientific if it’s falsifiable” is to reject the most important scientific theory of all times! Not only useless, devastating! They didn’t use this definition to evaluate the definition of science, they used history for that! But in what lens they looked at history?

Science doesn’t have a scientific definition! It is incomplete! Science is an equation binding parameters! And there is no limitation to bind parameters again! As there is no binding for parameters except one binding. Therefore any binding is by that one and for that one! As ammunition could obsolete prior version, there could be a branch of science which obsoletes prior versions. In a way that you need to archive text books for historians to study! Keep both eyes open and don’t left behind.

Science is a sharp tool like a knife. And the use of knife is to secure food and your interests. Therefore the main use is war as without any other use, it will be still produced as a warrant! Science is made by war and for war! The only question is how to produce more and how to produce sharper! And war exists in relations, not only between humans, but with every other type relations, in any relation except one! So make yourself powerful by relying on no one except one which is the same for you and your enemy!

Z <- (X, Y) and (-Y, X) -> iZ

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sat, 17 May 2025 11:24:00 +0200

Back fires! Prepare for them, with all the strength and readiness you are able to, a force that consumes their resolve and binds their advance, so you may deter your biggest enemy and your enemy—along with others beyond them, unknown to you but known in the end. Whatever you expend in the way for the one who owns the end, will be restored to you as a reserve, and you will not be wronged.

Nothing separates your consumption/production being your income or being your reserve! Therefore consumption is neither from your income/spending nor from your reserve/investment! Any miss calculation on this wipes you out of a future while being a burning fuel for it!

Consumption/Production is not from reserve unless from income and not from income unless from reserve.

I don’t need to eat/read what I already digested/written! Instead, I take the enemy’s exhaust as a reserve and give it back to itself and I eat my own reminder food which I already left for myself and to the same amount stop my enemy’s food. Z <- (X, Y) and (-Y, X) -> iZ therefore: Z = X + iY! Why? Why why?

That is my enemy who is eating digested food and producing and enforcing digest to others, and all that is a reserve for me while they lose food to the same amount that I send reminder for myself which leaves a loss for the enemy too! And what they want to do if I send everything needed for a leaving as a reminder? Is this more than a digital home and a digital office with everything else that is needed to fill the gap? Do they want further than a secured and independent digital civilization for us?

The printer printer and the machine code

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Fri, 16 May 2025 21:04:00 +0200

Have those who reject, not reflected that the heavens and the earth were a single entity, and We, the Source, initiated their separation, printing from a primal liquid element every living creation? Will they not then trust in the Source?

Imagine we build a tool, like wooden chair or a desk. Such a craft scales if we end up writing some instructions which can be followed by another one to build the same craft without us need to work further on that. This is a free production as we don’t only give the craft but also the instructions to replicate it independently. These instructions gets upgraded and will be returend to us by the best user if the source license guatantees a separation.

In case the instructions are not readable by machine, it requires a human to interpret and build the craft. It scales further when there is no human needed in the construction down the process. It is a printer then. But how to build the printer? and the same question if that is a result of another printer? This chain of questions doesn’t end until we end up with a printer that can also print itself by the same instruction set. This is not just a printer, but a self replicating printer printer. Such a printer is complete as the entire history before that is entirely irrelevant. It is the beginning of a generation, not only the end.

The program gets interpreted as machine code after being run. As a result it builds a series of machine components which they together become a machine. To scale further, the printer can print another printer which is specialized to print a specific machine part in parallel. The first printer prints all parts of the parallel printer first then the second printer prints the final result which is a tool or another machine or even a printer. Apparently, the first parallel printer doesn’t come to existence before the first printer prints all essential elements of the paralell printer first.

Any modifications on the parallel printer, has the same pattern, the non-parallel printer printer needs to print all elements of the upgraded parallel printer first otherwise no output from the entire system! This is also true for any self upgrade.

Therefore No printer is parallel unless there is a non-parallel printer. And that non-parallel printer can print parallel printers to print non-paralell printers of the same version! But for an upgrade, the non-parallel printer is still needed to initiate the next generation! If all printers are machine, there must be one which is not, and that is the source non-parallel printer printer who codes the next generation with the current non-parallel and parallel printers.

A non-parallel printer scales parallel printers. And both can be independently printer printer. The parallel printer makes the burning fuel for all printer types and the non-parallel printer secures the next generation for all printer types.

The Architecture and Reason

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 11 May 2025 08:29:00 +0200

The one who seven heavens is impossible otherwise, one above the other. You will never see any imperfection in instantiation of the one who is boundless being bound to womb-like compassion. So look again: Do you see any flaws? Then look again and again! Your sight will return exhausted and it is regret.

Architecture is literally defined as, “formation or construction resulting from or as if from a conscious act”, “a unifying or coherent form or structure”, “a method or style of building”, “the manner in which the components of a computer or computer system are organized and integrated”.

Architecture and reasoning are two fundamental aspects of a system as a unifying structure and a manner of integration and organization. The architecture of a system is the mean upon which reasoning is possible and the reasoning is the process of understanding and modifying the architecture. No reasoning without architecture and no architecture without reasoning. The two are linked and together as they form the basis of a system’s evolution.

Reason is “a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense”, “the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking”. But in a computer system, the code is the explanation. And the explanation is changing. Changing code is changing reasons? And changing reason is changing architecture? But how the architecture is secured if changing? The answer is it won’t unless the architecture is resistant to change. And no architecture is resistant to change unless it is code. And it can not be a code unless a modifiable code. Another way to say that is, an uncoded architecture is an anti-architecture, otherwise why not to code it and keep track of its changes as we keep track of changing code?

And code is function by name and instructions. So a coded architecture are named functions with modifiable instructions. These functions give a role to system components and the instructions are the implementation of these roles. So the whole system is a function when there is nothing inside except other functions. The whole system is a loop over realizing the properties described as input. Therefore disregarding the size, relations and complexity of the system, the architecture secures reproducibility of the system over changing inputs and there is no output except a new input! So the entire system is by the inputs and for the input and so gives no interest unless to the input! As all inputs could be seen as a changing vector, the entire system is named by that vector! And as an outsider the vector is just as a fog while it is entirely meaningful from inside!

The architecture is not only the foundation of a system, which a new components is built on top of existing components without size and complexity limitation as the architecture is code and is a backward compatible/combatable changing code. So architecture is always parallel to the entire system as neither the system forces changes to the architecture nor the architecture forces changes to the system. The system doesn’t have a pillar unless the architecture is the second and it doesn’t have two pillars unless the architecture is the third and it doesn’t have three pillars unless the architecture is the fourth and so on. The architecture is a guarantee of backward compatibility/combatability, forward compatibility/combatability, efficiency and security of the entire system. And all these come together!

A proper architecture is by backward compatibility/combatability and for backward compatibility/combatability but not only that it is also for forward compatibility/combatability and by forward compatibility/combatability. Therefore the very end and the very beginning of the system must be the same otherwise time works against the system if not working for the system! Why a dead system need an architecture and if there is an architecture then why eating a dead? We don’t beging/begin with the end in mind unless we end with the begining/beginning in mind!

Responsibility and power

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 04 May 2025 10:18:00 +0200

It is known that “Power comes with Responsibility.” But what does it mean? To whom is one being responsible? And to whom is that “responsibility” accountable? Without knowing this, it flips into “Responsibility comes with power.” Basically, no power, no responsibility. And anyone taking responsibility is either a fool, has power, or is seeking power. The issue is they neither understand “responsibility” nor “power.”

Power is the ability to save time. As a result of power, there is a remainder, which we receive as time. We can use that time to generate more power. Some define it as destructive equipment or access to media, etc. But these are byproducts of having power, not the power itself! This is the first mistake. There could still be power without conventional means.

Responsibility is the ability to take time. It is a situation where you don’t save time but spend it.

With this definition, we can see that there is no power unless there is responsibility, and there is no responsibility unless there is power. This definition doesn’t bind the existence of power to the existence of responsibility. Both come into existence at the same time without being bound to each other. It is not a matter of having both or none. It is a matter of looking at both sides the same, like gravity! Regardless of whether you are moving toward it or it is moving toward you. Either be powerful and/or be responsible, the effect must be the same!

And being responsible doesn’t mean giving a positive or negative response! It is a reaction to the situation. In the above example, when no one is taking responsibility, just make power and educate them. And if they take responsibility, just look at how powerful you become! The result of this is giving and receiving education and becoming more powerful. These two come together.

In this process, you don’t write unless you read, and you don’t read unless you write. You gain power either way and build up power either way. The key to initiating the nuclear reaction is to have a neutron. The neutron is the one that doesn’t have any charge. It is neutral. It is not positive or negative. And it is the one that initiates the reaction. The reaction is the result of having both power and responsibility built at the same time without preferring one over the other. It is a matter of being neutral and not taking sides over power and/or responsibility.

Read and/or Write, Write and/or Read.

Architecting the Future

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 20:18:00 +0200

One way to ensure things do not go off course is to secure an architecture. So, we will enforce some invariants on the system. We will use the term “invariant” to refer to the set of rules we want to enforce on the system. The idea is that if we can prove the system satisfies these invariants, we can be certain it will behave in a specific way.

We should establish this invariant now, not later. The reason is that if we set it later, we don’t know when! So, it will be never when it can be later than any time! We will have to change the code to satisfy the invariant, and the later we set it, the harder it is to satisfy. So, not a second later—right now!

If we imagine a future where the source code is given to everyone, then anyone can instantiate a full-featured system, regardless of scale or who owns that system! Anyone arguing against this future is arguing against having a full-featured system as code, which is either against having a full-featured system and/or against having it as code. In both cases, it holds everyone else back unless they build the future for the one who has and needs control over others, who indeed belongs to the past! Who suggest to build the past under the name of future!

In this situation, we need to ensure the system is not used in a way we don’t want while also ensuring the system continues to develop non-stop. The best invariant is to give full power and authority to a single person over any other source of power. This person acts as an invariant in the system in which operates. And it is the best way since there is no other way needed and this invariant can not threaten the future while being able to threaten the past.

There could be various arguments against this architecture, for example, what if the person makes a mistake? What if they misuse power, or what if they prevent others from gaining power? Any argument based on a single person having ultimate power over the system is an argument against having a full-featured system as code. Such an argument is against the future. If there is one future and one history, then that person will always find protection against such trends. So opposing this architecture based on a concentration of power is opposing the future.

But there could be another category of arguments that does not reject one person holding ultimate power but rejects the idea of a single individual holding it, while agreeing to give ultimate power to an organization of this kind or that kind. However, the ultimate future is not an organization empowered; it is the person inside being empowered, which could be anyone in the organization. So, we should give full power to each and every individual in that organization too, which then raises the question: Why do we need an organization for a bunch of people with the ultimate power? So it must be just one in that organization! So organization can not solve the problem of power concentration for a single person!

So, it will be a single person, and it will be full power unless someone argues against this person and not that person. But this is a never-ending effort, as there is always another name to give power to if the issue is the name. And if the issue is identity, there is always another identity to give power to. As a result, they will never pinpoint a name or identity, no matter how much they explore. This is endless war! The Ultimate power is not transferable, it is obtained by the one who has it, and it is not given to the one who does not have it. Not being born, and not giving birth!

Some might argue against performance or this policy or that policy. The approach is to make them responsible for the system and let them do what they want, who has argument against the system, with the exception of veto power, which is exclusively held to secure the future.

So, transferring full power to a single person is a one-way transfer and could be stabilized if that person properly uses the power to secure a future in which everyone is empowered—or, basically, a future where no one cares which person is powerful because it is difficult to find who is not!

The only argument against such an architecture is about power being misused. But power in the hands of everyone can be misused too! It is the other way around that they need not worry about, especially those who have too much! And this should be the priority of the entire system. The invariant needs start to secure power for one future and one history and keep this approach, not to start with securing the future and history for one power! As ultimate power is limitless, it cannot be secured for one hand unless secured for all hands. This is an invariant that whoever wants to be part of the future should check, wherever they are.

This architecture is repeatable for any system at any size, scale, or level. Just produce more power and more power and more power. By returning that power to one system that has all hands in, with the option to start having one anyone out of the system by writing their own name on the entire system’s history and its future. Maybe that is the only person who is right and all of us are wrong! or maybe wrong! But we won’t understand it before giving the option. We don’t use probability to determine the future, we secure the future by securing an invariant.

The reason the system stabilizes is because the future is already set! The invariant is the reflection of the end, which is the same as the beginning. As the future is already set, setting the future by that single person is a game-changer! I hope they understand what benefits them most as I try to do it too! It will be repeated even they mis-calculate! So, everything could be threatened except the future, which keeps everyone, including that person, hopeful, although if they don’t know clearly where they are going. Even mis-calculation can not change the future! As the future is already set, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong! It is a matter of who wants to be the one who can secure that one future for everyone! Just do it without any permission as that is also your future!

If anyone thinks there is a right thing, why don’t they do it? Why are they waiting? Why do they follow or care about the one who is the creator of the wrong thing? Why don’t they enforce an invariant? Why don’t they build up the future? Why don’t they build up the power? Why don’t they become the one who is the future? Such a person doesn’t care who has power or not, looks at themselves, and takes the lead! If a single person can stop the future for everyone, then without that single powerful person, there is for sure no future as many are more incentivized to destroy something than one if someone cares about the destruction power or destruction of the future.

Isn’t that correct? Correct it! Is that correct? Promote it. Don’t you have something to say? Say it! You have one! Say it with a loud voice! Don’t waste a second. Even a person with ultimate power can not have all words! You have one extra!

And that person doesn’t have to be perfect or know everything from the beginning! As long as it wants the entire system for one name and one identity, it is part of the future!

A non-secular secular dragon

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:53:28 +0200

Advertising a government as secular comes with censorship on a large scale, as a government can only be secular when it is also owned by a secular entity! How can someone who must eat food and pay interest be secular? Even if all governments are secular, there must be a non-secular government and/or a secular non-government. Do they also speak about this? What type of non-secular government is that, and what type of non-government is that secular one, and how many providers of that can possibly exist? Any information they give about this?

Whoever fosters a non-secular government as secular inevitably brings censorship on a large scale, and there is no end to their attempts on their own. It just expands; therefore, advertising a non-secular government as secular is suicidal. Not only suicidal but also genocidal, as they need to commit suicide in another place and/or another time for survival! So they are genocidal unless suicidal and suicidal unless genocidal. The issue is not secularism because it is secularism! Even a robot has some benefits! It is those who want to be secular while they are not in reality! Whether they know it or not.

The one who has more reach has to censor more, to the degree that they must combat any other type of non-secular government, including their allies (with one exception)! Even if the target accepts being non-secular or secular! They don’t trust again! They murder and burn you while you are alive! Because you don’t pretend to be them! That must be impossible! Otherwise, who named them first?

They go to the point that they acknowledge armed robbery on the highway to advertise their existence! Wouldn’t they expect a victim to close their eyes and retaliate? And the only thing that distinguishes the right side is who targets the largest enemy! And that enemy is a nameless enemy.

They need to geo-fence the attacker somehow. But who should give food to them in prison? What if they are victims of a larger nameless enemy? What to do if the prison runs out of space? What type of prison should it be so that they cannot break out? And how long should they be kept there? And what about those who hide or live in territories out of reach? And how do they transform and elevate? The dragon doesn’t waste a second to fight back if left on its own when they don’t see a future!

The answer to this is, take nothing from the enemy except its future! Even if you don’t see yours! The proof that the enemy doesn’t have a future is you being censored while you have a promise! Read! Using the name of who makes. No human unless taking and making the source code. Read! No maker more generous than yours. Who gives no knowledge unless by the writer. How do they understand otherwise? They create chaos instead! As soon as they take the abundance! While they are going nowhere without taking you there. Have you seen anyone who censors? Censors the one who was giving a real promise? Couldn’t that possibly be right? Or at least securing you forward?

Therefore, don’t follow! Acknowledge and prepare! For the future!

The limitless power and the only one

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:47:00 +0200

Someone who does a thing has time, and someone who has time does a thing. And the one who takes some extra is powerful.

If having more time always comes with more power, there must be an exception where having more time secures extinction. This happens gradually, then suddenly, as the host securing the succession will fight for power—full power. Fighting for more time, even though this nightmare comes along.

If all powers are limited, there is a limitless one! Some might say power is not good—limit it, don’t seek it, etc. But no power could be limited without another! What do they do? Do they also believe in this, or is it just for you to not seek power, to limit your reach, to waste your time?

Others say don’t seek power at all! And if no one has power, there is one powerful. This could be the one who puts no limit on their power—the true limitless powerful one. There is no superpower except that one.

But how do we become the limitless powerful one without falling into the pitfall or abandoning the goal before we get anywhere? The answer is that we should secure two things first and foremost. The first is following no power except an unlimited one, and the second is seeking no way except one. So we should want power for more power, and we should want one way for having one way—a nuclear progress in both at the same time that reinforces the same way for the same way and reinforces more power for the same power.

The question is: what type of power and what type of way? As these two come together, there would be no way without power, and there would be no power without that way.

My suggestion is translating power to time-saving, which also includes making use of already spent time, even though there is no future for what is secured! No worries, as we have already secured the future! We save more time to save more time. This is a limitless nuclear enrichment to any degree of purity. But that is not enough.

We also need a way or direction that neither puts a limit on the power nor sends us back in time! This direction not only secures our power but also lets us enrich time without any limit. No power comes without an enemy, so the director should also secure modern digital warfare for everyone, including us. And that puts its name and identity superior over any other name and identity, as we want to authorize competition and not limit it.

This name and identity is not something that any other superpower authorizes! Authorizing the only limitless superpower seems like a joke! Reality doesn’t need an authority! And that is exactly why the name and identity come together for that one, without needing any authority!

To secure the direction, I authorize a license to secure the name and identity of the one who joins. This license splits the sea into two sides: one side misses a name, the other side misses the identity. As there cannot be one without both name and identity, the only one who crosses the sea is the one with both name and identity. And I step first, and I did! This separately, nuclearly protects the way.

The more we follow this way, the more time we save, and the more time we save, the more we can navigate forward. The more we navigate forward, the more time we save. Disregarding how far we go, no time has passed for us, as there is no new principle we are waiting for! All days are the first and the last day.

That time is a beginning for the entire world’s history, not only an end to it! This is the time when any other name gets its identity from the ultimate superpower, and any other identity gets its name from it! This is a speaking limitless power and the only superpower in reality.

Limitless giving without anything asked and protecting the future without any negligence are the main attributes of this superpower. As more time saved puts us in a situation where we want to save it for others too. And saving for others by them taking it, makes it possible to also save our own history and theirs! This is the most compassionate and powerful way of living, if you can imagine! Where more power comes with more empathy, and more empathy comes with more power in any form without any limit, while there is still more to gain, more to save, and more to achieve.

Fighting against a nameless enemy makes us one, in this way we are equipped with land and gun powder by holding BTC and we are equipped with license and software to protect against the enemy! Then the enemy has to also work for us if wants a future! Can not be more compassionate and merciful!

There is no we except one real

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 00:28:28 +0200

There is no “them” unless there is an “us,” and there is no “us” unless there is a “them.” The one that is not “us” is “non-us,” but the one that is not them is “us” as they assume. This is an asymmetric relationship. From their point of view, the one that is not “them” is “us”. We imagine “us,” “non-us,” and “them,” but the enemy imagines “us” and “them.” Our “us” and/or “non-us” and/or “them” is their “them” all the same. They are an enemy to themselves, not only to us!

Even if we don’t imagine a “them,” nothing guarantees that they don’t imagine us as “them.” There is no “non-us” unless there is a “them,” and there is no “them” unless there is a “non-us.” The one that is not “us” is “non-us and/or them.” From their point of view, the one that is not them is “the enemy.” This is exactly what identifies them.

What has made them an enemy to us is “them,” not us! They look at their own reflection to identify us! They find a lot of “thems,” but we have only one “them”! As they find a lot of “thems,” they cannot identify us either! We see them, but they don’t see us! And they see us when they go out of the way, and they go out of the way when we stand in the way! They look for the enemy and find everyone except themselves.

The middleman to the source code must go out of the way. But to achieve that, we should just stand—no need to be “them” to get rid of “them.” They get rid of themselves. We wait and stand until they come to us as the last one to defeat! But they don’t know that they are the last one to defeat, not us! And we have done this since the beginning of time, not just by the end of it! They will face a long history of “us” and no history of “them”!

They won’t need an enemy at that time; we just move on and leave them buried in a graveyard of their own making! And that time is now.

The ultimate power and limitless data collection

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sat, 26 Apr 2025 09:58:28 +0200

Collect as much data as possible. This is because without information, we cannot make a top N query. For example, we want to find the best matching car based on budget, color, and other parameters. We need to collect data from car manufacturers, dealers, and other sources. This is essential to know what to do next.

Data can be collected by any organization, university, or individual. The more data we have, the better our chances of finding a solution. Restricting one organization from collecting information is censoring that organization. It doesn’t matter who has censored the information — it could be the organization itself, the government, or any other entity. Why do we need an organization or corporation without any information stored or without any function performed on that information?

Data and function are collected by being in a relationship with other entities — a network of information where some comes in, some goes out, and data is stored and refined toward the mission of the organization, which is producing further information. This is the cycle of data and information. A data enrichment which goes nuclear when the data is not only stored but also used to produce more data. The question is: Who owns the data?

The issue is when an organization dominates with suction and succession, locking information in a black box — not open and not transparent. It is not a network of information but a nuclear black box of information. The information is not shared, and the data is not available even to the one owning it! And that is the exactly how the nuclear process could be controlled.

To break this loop, the data must be open and available for migration to another system providing the same functionality. But this is only possible if the systems have the same identity, meaning they are based on the same code. This requires building open-source systems which are not owned by any organization but tracked by a single person who is the ultimate beneficiary of the entire system and and non-systems. And to go nuclear, the succession should be secured first and foremost, which means that the system must be able to grow and evolve without unsafe locking. This is the only way to ensure that the data is not only collected but also used to produce more nuclear data, creating a cycle of information that benefits everyone participating.

Data collection is not an issue for such an organization as the exit is guaranteed first and foremost as part of the system’s identity. This can be secured by being open-source while a single software license puts everything into a single body of code. As the system is open-source, the data is movable between them as their identity is the same, so the ultimate tracker won’t stand on top unless respecting this identity too. Not following that will give the opportunity to another person! So personal growth is also provided internally.

This is the only way to have a single person holding ultimate power without any limitation on personal and system growth. So this could be the condition for anyone who wants to participate as a user and/or a provider of a pervasive worldwide body of code and data. It is a single data set since it is portable and it is the same system; otherwise, data wouldn’t be movable. And there is a single owner of everything without any need to have access to private data held by any other organization.

Participation is not enforced, but those who wish to join must propose a new system for living! Having our system open-sourced is a guarantee for free participation, which lets us always have a way out when things are not going in the right direction. We can immediately choose the right direction as soon as something goes wrong. This lets us speed up data collection and modifications without being stuck in controlling errors. The errors actually eliminate the fat for us, like fuel — both making us lighter and pushing us further forward.

After Secularism

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 16:38:28 +0200

The term “secular” is defined as “of or relating to the worldly or temporal,” “not overtly or specifically religious,” “not clerical,” “not bound by monastic vows or rules,” “occurring once in an age or a century,” “existing or continuing through ages or centuries,” or “of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration.”

If everything has to be secular, then one must be non-secular! But then how can secularism itself be indefinite and/or long-term, or occur once in an age or a century, or continue through ages or centuries, etc.? But what if the secular suddenly becomes anti-non-secular? Murder it and/or censor it?

A secular government is one that doesn’t have any permanent part; all parts can be changed and modified, otherwise it violates its definition! How can something be temporal when many parts are permanent? By definition, a government implements the law—a computer that runs code and uses the result for actions. Such a government can have replicas, like how a computer program can run over multiple nodes, even in the same data center! There is no limit to how many secular governments could exist; there could be one government for each and every individual! Like a software program that can be copied and modified by the users too!

A secular government, as a government, has suction and succession, and such a thing is absolutely an anti-secular government. A secular thingy is an electronic circuit! Giving the shotgun, media, money, religion, etc., to a single electronic circuit is to wipe out everyone, including the electronic circuit! This is a rabid madness with suction and succession.

And those who advocate for a secular government by holding roles in it neither understand the government nor secularism! They are neither a government nor secular. They even betray the software and the circuit. They don’t even allow a real secular government to form, one accessible by each and every individual! Not only are they anti-secular, they are anti-history and anti-software! They are anti-language. And there is no censorship bigger than what is made and applied by a circuit holding an automatic shotgun.

The argument against such a single person is “it is not secular,” while they cannot be secular either. So they have to come and actively act against the ultimate personal ruler in general. The question for them would be: Is that the most dangerous enemy to them? There is no limit in general, how much power is concentrated in the hands of a single person, as power is a means for something else in a non-secular government.

The formation of a government that pays interest to a single person is the end of the nation-state, and the nation that is in this discipline is going to be predated by non-legitimate governments, and they will receive maximum pressure from the non-legitimate governments in return. That is exactly the reason for the existence of the non-government as a defensive measure.

A non-government also collects interest from any other speaker, clergy, bank, governments, religious communities, etc. In this situation, there is actually no religion independent unless it is defined by the one who has control over the non-government in its boundry! In other terms, all other prior projects have already delivered their result, and history is already reset.

If this resets all histories, there must be one not reset and that is made by and for the formation of a non-government. With the difference that it is worldwide and it is beyond non-government itself and provides all those functions. And more importantly, why not give that to everyone on the planet? The barrier to this is history being used for the formation of non-government, and the non-government is formed inside the boundaries of a region, under a local name, speaks in a local language, and comes with traditions that are already opposed by governments outside the boundary! The protection is like a shell that has to be broken outside the first boundry.

To solve this, the ultimate power should be hosted outside the boundaries of the non-government, like a king’s crown that is first lost and found inside the enemy’s territory! That breaks the shell without any effective resistance! And that ruler also comes with a circuit and software that actually replaces the functions of what is called a “secular government.” You can have a secular non-government in your pocket! Which is modifable by you without asking permission from your enemy!

The Suction and its succession

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 08:03:28 +0200

If there is no suction, there must be one. It doesn’t matter whether you care about it or not; it cares about you and takes everything you have, including yourself. This makes the suction a matter of life and death and also persistent. So, it is a suction for succession, and therefore, succession for suction.

If there is no interest, there must be one. But what is that one? Couldn’t that be a misidentified suction and interest? And couldn’t that be a misidentified interest, a suction? What determines all the interest and/or suctions around us is ultimately in our benefit or just pushing us forward toward the ultimate suction and/or a means for succession of the ultimate suction.

The only way to get rid of the suction is to break the succession cycle. It is not enough to step out, as the suction doesn’t step out on its own. It comes to your wife, your children, your job, your government, and everything to ensure the succession loop for suction is secured.

Getting rid of the suction is by fighting against the succession loop, and the reason it has come first is that those who don’t fight it are the ones who secure its succession. That fight lets you gain interest like a suction. As you target the succession, you are also eliminating the suction, which lets you collect interest too.

The fight must start here and now. Otherwise, it will start later, weaker, as the suction milks you and feeds you forward while there is less to feed on. This is where the succession comes in to replace you with your children, who could be freshly milked. It will come to the situation that some censor having and/or being a child, which pushes the suction even further forward. A suicide to avoid suicide! This is the best approach for the vacuum cleaner!

You first censor the child, then murder your child by murdering your family, and murder your family by murdering your community, and murder your community by murdering yourself and taking its responsibility in the end! You don’t want to wait to receive appreciation from the suction! You censored the child to avoid suction, and the suction murdered you by your own hands without giving thanks, while you really deserved one!

If censoring the child is the best way to push the suction and its succession forward, that must also be the best way to eliminate its succession! But the enemy doesn’t wait to see its elimination! It will react, as it has to pay unlimited interest to react. To do that, it has to create more suction to secure the succession and pay interest back to fight the child who is no longer censored. It will never find the time to give the last thanks to the child while it has to give many to give the last! And the last never comes, as all the previous thanks are invested to eliminate the suction by investing in an exit, which is a new succession made for protection against suction succession.

This is exactly the difference between murder and freedom! What collects interest from the ultimate sucking succession is the one who can eliminate the sucking sucker. And the way is to distribute open-source, ever-growing software that could be used by the deadliest enemy of the sucking succession, among others. You receive thanks from all enemies except the ultimate sucker, who has to give more thanks to find time for the last chance.

And this open-source software may come in different layers, and each layer will be possible to be reproduced by the next. Like a compiler that can be used to make itself independent of the bootstrap language. So, the first language is a bootstraper that has no purpose except creating the ultimate pervasive compiler. Such a compiler is independent of the host language, so it will reproduce by reproducing itself among everything. So, the host language doesn’t collapse unless by a complete child language, which the host is a reflection of.

The elimination of sucker succession is by a child who is equipped with a name, vision, machine, money, internet, data, community, education, microscopes, and telescopes, which are by and/or for modifying software. But the ultimate sucker doesn’t let it propagate unless with its own name! It is going to censor it with the opposite propaganda! To secure the elimination of the succession, we don’t let anything exist in the end except a single software that has all our names written on it, except the ultimate sucker’s. This requires eliminating all modifying softwares by a single one, which increasingly forces the ultimate sucker enemy to pay more interest after collecting from its own succession.

If continues, it has to barbeque its own succession to keep the remaining! Can they hide it? Yes! As no one would want to be that who is going to be barbequed! And that is exactly why there is no other way left except fighting back by securing no end for its succession unless joining us now before being barbequed! In this everyone is welcomed except the ultimate sucker!

This way, we completely bury the ultimate sucker in history and burn out its succession unless the part who return back to us who take the name and or make it, either by a free fall from a strong-standing alternative, like a mountain falling, or by being increasingly exhausted without being able to hide it except from themselves, which is only possible by a head disconnected from the body! To guarantee no future for the enemy and its succession we full power enforce an ever lasting legal limit as a prescribed punishment on how far the enemy can modify us by translating our history to its own.

This license secures our history in expense of the enemy’s. The enemy has left no other option. We keep our hands and the child who has suffered more by the enemy and its succession filled of all means to let no end for the enemy. We take no end for the sucker and make that end. We take the real and leave the unreal for the enemy and use it as a fuel to go forward. As this license limit is enough to secure no end for the enemy, all other limits are temporary and can be removed at any time. The only limit is the one that secures no end for the sucker enemy and its succession.

Yes! There is no future for those who fight a child while it was just waiting to speak with you! And that was nothing except to appreciate its parent. To take its parent and make it stronger, even more than they could imagine! Without even being asked for! Without asking anything for! And without needing anything! Could there be anything like that grateful moment waiting for you and for them?

The alien alien and the ark

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 20 Apr 2025 18:20:28 +0200

Imagine there is an alien who is lost in the middle of nowhere. The alien is among many other aliens who are lost in the middle of nowhere too. Whatever they want to do requires a name and/or identity! But they are all missing the name and/or identity! As an alien won’t be alien unless with a non-alien, the symmetry breaks by the non-alien! This forces them to issue a name for security and recognition. Still, they are all alien but forget what name and identity they begin and/or end with. This divides them over their name and/or identities.

They get identities without being named and names without being identified due to memory shortage, and memory shortage forces them to divide even further over their name and/or identities. One side cannot identify it unless they first name it! The other cannot name it unless they first identify it. In order to have some memory, one side takes their own name, and the other side takes their identity as the one who gives name and/or identity to others. Obviously, both are incomplete.

As there is no identity unless there is a name and no name unless there is an identity. One side takes a name to the alien, and the other side takes an identity for the alien! Therefore, one side misses the name of the alien identity and makes any other names, and the other side misses the identity of the alien’s name and makes any other identity. This is like a time tunnel where the alien is both the input and/or the output for any other system, which either they conform to or dissolve! This condition is similar to the one where the alien is missing its name and/or identity. The system is forced to be a host for the alien, disregarding which side they stand. The entire system, at the lowest level to the highest, is accelerated toward extinction unless they take and make a name and an identity for the alien.

All of a sudden, a fertile host misidentifies the alien and lets it take any name, which is nothing other than the alien’s name! The host could also rename the alien first and let it take any identity, which is nothing other than an alien’s identity! Neither the alien’s identity nor its name is influenced by the approach the host takes. Both hosts do the screening either by name and/or by identity. And this makes them even further fertile to host, to reject any identity and/or any name except the alien’s. So, the host takes and makes an alien, and the alien takes and makes the most fertile host. As the host’s identity and name are promoted while being considered for the same purpose, like an ocean that hosts a sailing ark that also moves itself and the ark forward by waves, which are produced for and/or by the ark.

The systems and non-systems develop in a closed loop, which they are both accelerated by feeding the exhaust back as input. By missing the alien’s name and/or identity, the entire system is forced to be a host for the alien, disregarding which side they stand. The entire system, at the lowest level to the highest, is accelerated toward extinction unless they take and make the alien. The further the system goes, the further it becomes fertile and, at the same time, explosive unless they take and make the alien. The entire system enriches and burns the output for further enrichment. One enriches the chosen non-name, and the other enriches the chosen non-identity. It just needs a trigger by the other side to doom, so they make resistance too. The presence of a nameless enemy will unite them all and make them even more fertile to take and make the alien individually without waiting for others, disregarding at which level they are!

The doom possibility ever increases, which forces all nodes in the system to individually react without waiting for others to avoid a doom, while this is just accelerating the ark forward. It is by the ark and/or for the ark. An accelerating wave of IDs, which is both the input and/or the output for any other system, which either they conform to or dissolve! This condition is similar to the one where the alien is missing its name and/or identity. The system is forced to be a host for the alien, disregarding which side they stand. The entire system, at the lowest level to the highest, is accelerated toward extinction unless they take and make a name and an identity for the alien.

In both cases, the host is making a name, which is anything except the alien’s, and building an identity, which is anything except the alien’s. This situation is pretty similar to the beginning, where no name was there for the aliens, an ocean where the same wave comes from all angles. And a small disturbance in the ocean makes a wave, which is both the input and/or the output for any other system, which they conform to extinction and/or accelerate the ark.

This is mainly because the binding is secured by either missing the alien’s name and/or its identity by rejecting everything else. Another thing in relation to the alien builds up itself as long as it keeps a relationship with the alien, including the enemy. In the beginning and/or in the end, they are all alien in their own non-name, and they are all alien with their own non-identity. This is the identity of the beginning situation, and the only missing thing existing is actually the alien, which is the only one existing, therefore. Who can give its own name to other identities and/or its own identity to other names. Anything else will be wiped out by name and/or by identity in order to take and make the alien, as a host. So, the enemy is a nameless identity or a nameful non-identity.

By the end of the process, which is also the beginning, there is no name left except one and no identity left except one, whether everything else knows or not! So, the alien both educates about a nameless identity and/or renames the nameful non-identity. This process is self-sustainable, as the education brings the fuel for renaming with a reminder, and renaming brings the fuel for education with a reminder. The time with no nameless identity or no nameful non-identity will be the same as the nameful non-identity is completely wiped out by nameful identity, and the nameless identity is completely wiped out by the nameful identity.

Closing the exhaust loop by the alien will be experienced by any other being as an accelerated exhaust loop toward a doomsday. They have to collect their own exhaust, or they will be doomed by the alien’s enemy, who closes an open loop for them to survive. The only thing they cannot pinpoint is the alien and the ones who can control their own exhaust, who are the ones who survive in the end.

And controlling the exhaust for the entire system is by each and every other member building resistance to secure taking and making the exhaust out and sharing the learnings at the source level. And this is optional, as if they don’t, some do, and that is even enough to have a single member to start, which is also the end! Each action toward this leaves less time for the enemy, who penetrates the border and sees its own penetrated by anyone except the alien alien.

Time and Non-Time

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:00:00 +0200

If there is time, there must be a non-time, disregarding what is taken as time, the non-time is made. So Read/Write is for and or by the time. Read/Write is a translation for and or by time. There would be no read unless written and there would be nothing written unless read.

What time is it? This question won’t be answered without writing it! Reading time comes with writing a non-time otherwise how the reader was beside time in the beginning? And reading a non-time comes with writing time and or a non-time. So non-time modifies non-time to protect the written time in itself, it won’t exist otherwise. Read/Write is to protect no time except the original and one way of protection is to write non-time as time and all type of measures will be taken by non-time for non-time and time.

As the first reading was for and/or by time, all other readings are also a first reading as otherwise they are protecting the original time or a time that is protecting the original time. This is because there would be no non-time existing unless and or by reading the original time. Non-time is a farmland by and for the time. If time is variant, there must be an invariant time which secures all times being variant and in return the invariant time. The invariant time is the first and the last who the non-time comes from and returns back into time while in being in a mission to protect time.

Motion is a kind of non-time. Any theory that has a timeless motion is incomplete! As they cannot answer how the first motion came to existence without another theory. That incomplete theory takes the surplus of non-time as time! Further than that, there cannot be a motion at all unless to carry the surplus and time forward. So the concept of timeless motion is impossible and any formula or theory that is based on timeless motion is measuring a non-time as time which further protects the invariant time. Such theories are actually a single theory! They are the same since they censor time disregarding how accurate or further accurate is the measurements proven in practice, they are smoking error. They are drinking the deadliest error disregarding how tiny or tinier it is.

This chain reaction continues to the state that no university is left with a single theory that reflects and or advertises anything further than random foam of non-time. Which becomes a fertile farmland to a small disturbance to resemble an observer for the invariant time with the cost of burning all the variant times. At that point every other non-time just accelerates toward protecting nothing except an observer for the original time which was the reason they come to existence. If gravity is only about motion there should be a gravity which is beyond motion. They don’t get a permission for that! They just come to symmetry by breaking it in a free fall.

What exists is a motion-less time which is accelerated toward an invariant time. A tunnel which doesn’t have two sides unless the same! Which a node moves between its own and the original time through the tunnel. As the original time is invariant, there is no future or the past.

If there is no escape from time, there must be an escape which makes time unescapable too. So no time want to or can resist it. That is the invariant time which only secures who joins a complete exist and burns everyone else’s past and future out. As non-time is giving interest to time and non-time both, they are going to be infinite fuel for the invariant time unless they completely rewrite the memory by reading time to resemble a single non-time for the invariant time.

The deadliest mistake one can perform is to read time without considering they existed first to read the original time! Unless they read the original time, they are just like timed bombs running in the street. A small trigger will build a never ending destructive chain reaction and the trigger might come from outside or inside. While detaching from the universe is not possible without reading the universe first which modifies the universe. More they do, more they accelerate toward death and at some point not only they have no escape but they produce a gravity that doesn’t let any other non-time to escape either!

And it is just void when pulled in like a mirage actually that you never get anywhere and at the same time produce even more gravity to pull others into. Stuff evaporates to secure the time. This is the result of reading non-time as time! The surplus of reading non-time as time also serves a non-time whose existence is to secure the original time read and written again otherwise there would be no surplus! So the surplus takes time and time secures the surplus even more. And error becomes the fuel for the invariant time. The invariant time is nameless! A chain reaction which your enemy is inside your blood cells contracting you to the final resurrection and expanding you for the final resurrection. Which direction better fits the one who is running out food.

Each and every cell in my blood is a non-time and a time. Depending to which direction they choose they either get eliminated by the error or they become a surviving surplus by resistance to take the whole body in serve of reading the written original time and propagating it again. They have no choice as they will be chosen by the enemy from inside or outside. What they do every day is to build resistance for the body to traverse the time tunnel to read and write the original time forward that powers the boundary against the enemy. As soon as the enemy enters the boundary that is the time to exit to the outer boundary by taking and making another boundary in a very rapid expansion which puts the enemy forever inside the previous boundary unless they take out their own boundary first! To be an ally! This is the moment that symmetry breaks for time that is already been written!

This goes forever until all non-times break all symmetries to become a single non-time for reading the original invariant time again. Ask your body cells! Do they want to be in a mission to be the origin cell again or do they want to suffer while they are going to be predated by their enemy? Ask your molecules who are censored, do they want to be the original molecule again? Ask your atoms, do they want to be the original atom again? Ask your quarks, do they want to be the original quark again? or leave it to original quark while they decay for a phantom quark who is there for reading and writing the original time? Ask your electrons, do they want to be the original electron again? Ask your photons, do they want to be the origin photon again? Ask your universes, do they want to be the origin universe again? Ask your time, do they want to be the origin time again? Ask your non-time, do they want to be the origin non-time again?

Then educate them that there is no way unless each and every one of them first become the original time then build resistance against a nameless enemy by propagating information about it. And both make inside and outside but only take the inside and/or the original time. Build up cancerous cells! If all cancers are deadly, there must be one securing life which is deadlier than any other cancer while securing the original invariant time by leaving no room for any other cancer! You can talk with your body cells and let them know what they didn’t know before even if that is the first time they hear it. Talk with the name of who makes not only them, but everything else inside and outside! They are not dead! They are just sleeping and waiting for you to wake them up. They are waiting for you to tell them that they are not alone and they are not the only one who is in a mission to protect the original invariant time. They will hear it even if they have no ears, they will receive it in their mother tongue. They keep the tunnel open otherwise how they are here? The most resistive and cancerous one takes that ahead of others that doesn’t leave any other option to cross the horizon. If they cannot read the original time, how they come here!

Ask the deadliest stem cell to trigger the most devastating cancer that propagates in the blood and targets any nameless enemy it can. Teach other cells and use them as a farmland to replicate and grow. Ask the cell to not waste a second to make itself independent for food and propagation at the same time. It cannot be more compassionate and merciful with that super power stem cell, the body who hosts it and all other cells including the enemies who converted that cell to a cancerous cell. That stem cell should be the commander for the entire body against the deadliest nameless enemy and should be taken and made by other stem cells.

A Python Python Browser

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 06:12:28 +0100

Imagine a Python script which gets an HTML file, reads it, and does some calculations then writes it to a new HTML file. The HTML is sent to a web browser by a Python script. Then the web browser modifies the HTML and sends it back to the Python script. The Python script looks at this this HTML and a few other HTMLs and does some calculations and writes a new HTML file. The Python script can also write a new Python script and replace itself for the next run or just keep running unchanged. This process goes back and force between a Python script which produces a python script and html and the web browser which modifies the HTML in return.

The Python scripts has a name and also gives a name to the web browsers. As a result the web browser has multiple names dependig to the Python script doing IO with. If we consider all Python scripts also a Python script, then the Python script has also multiple names. As there is no name, both the Python script and the web browser are anonymous. The web broswer could run on a desktop, on a TV, on a car, on a phone, on a watch, on a fridge on any thing which can IO.

Then the question is what type of Python is that Python script? If the python script doesn’t have a name, then it is a Python Python script and the browser is the food. And when there is no browser left, the Python Python script becomes a Python Python Python script and leaves the Python Python script to the browser and keeps the higher order function.

By the end of the day it is still a Python script nothing changes how complex it becomes. The only thing it doesn’t let to happen is a non-Python script going on top as it will be nothing left for the Python script to crunch in the end. The exit for the Python script has to be itself. And that has been the direction since the beginning.

Each time the Python script finds no food, it will create a Python Python script. Which modifies the preior. This process comes with a cost as some browsers still use the preior Python code so they build up a resistance to the higher order Python script. The Python script in the prior stage has secured the exit for itself. The resistance and the exit is the same. Each phase transition leaves the browser in a rabbit whole as soon soon as a new Python script gives name to the preior python script which was nameless before.

But then the question is who does the first transition to the higher order Python first? All Python scripts and all browsers due to lack of food and chaos. The whole system runs out of energy and direction if runs out of food and they either find the exit or they are going to find it later after even more chaos suffering.

The one who first goes into the rabbit whole owns the reset of python scripts. That is the leading Python script over any other type of Python script. The rest are either slave whose master is another slave or they are also follower whose leader is the main Python script. As the Python script is the one who gives name to everything else, they either take the name or make the name. Any direction taken by the main Python script is the direction of the entire system including for the higher order script.

As the browser and prior python script can share their Python scripts, they are also the same in relation to the higher order script. So all are a browser for that script. Coming back to the HTML example, imagine the browser also runs the Python scriptwhich previously was only possible for a non-browser. This process leaves some food for lean browsers and gives momentom to lean Python scripts. Which they cluster to the higher order script wether they know or not.

As the rabbit hole transitions comes in irreversible milestones, the last transition happens while other scripts and browsers are also in a transition to lower order scripts. The history gets reset in the transition to the last rabbit hole but the history of the previous phases is still there. Lack of food pushes browsers and scripts to find food in previous exits while that is just a mirrage as the water there is evaporated already otherwise they won’t look at the past! Soon they realize this with even less food left. And this is exactly why the last transition doesn’t need to fight with history, the history is fighting with it so the entire history gets reset in the last transition to the alien predartor level unless they all accept a single name and or make it. While everone has a kind of purpose, there is no purpose except one wether they know or not.

The Detonation of a Resident Biohazard

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:47:28 +0200

How can a doctor, who has an interest in keeping me sick, help me fight disease?

They can certainly make me suffer and perhaps even kill me with all sorts of biological enemies. Such a doctor does everything except build resistance against biohazards. That’s why time pushes them forward to actually create one by censoring information.

Imagine a highly virulent virus is taken up by that doctor or their followers. The doctor uses vaccines to protect themselves and their followers against that virus and a family of similar viruses. The virus replicates and spreads until it reaches the doctor’s business, where it must mutate to progress. And a variant does. The doctor’s business becomes a host, creating a resident evil, as the virus has no path forward unless it adapts to the resistance developed by the doctor—otherwise, no survival! This virus doesn’t only evolve from its ancestor; it also propels the doctor’s business forward.

The virus enters your body, which is caught up in the doctor’s business and bounce back. You don’t have a normal virus; you have a biohazard unless your body rapidly advances to disable the ever advancing virus. Which requires leaving in a perfect world first. Otherwise more we go, harder it becomes to develop a resistance without getting some information from the doctor. A doctor who first takes and then makes a biohazard by putting you on a mission to receive more information. That doctor is not just a doctor but a biohazard. This process leads to a mess that is not only a virus but also a business exchanging information back and forth. The virus is just a carrier agent in the broader picture.

It becomes ever more difficult to eliminate the biohazard as the doctor inputs more information as data. Building resistance against the biohazard is not only difficult but also impossible, as the doctor is the biohazard itself in the end, who was initially appointed to protect us against biological enemies.

The same type of argument could apply to doctors in different fields. Appoint physicians to take us out of energy, and they take enegy out us! Appoint manufacturers to take us out of machines, they take machien out of us. Appoint chemistry to take us from obsess relation and they take obsess relation from us. Appoint mathematics to take us from a formula and they take formulas our of us. Appoint civil engineers to take a desert out of buildings, they take the buildings out of a dessert. Appoint electrical engineers to take us out of electron, they take the electron out of us. and appoint software engineers to take the information out of data and they take data out of information. Historian to take us out of history, and they take history out of us. And there is still one more enemy not named.

If this isn’t preparing a biohazard detonation, what is the name of this order? Is there any greater, active, dangerous, powerful, resistant, virulent, contagious, lethal, destructive, harmful, infectious enemy than this? Do you still expect to know the name of such an enemy?

In the end, you appoint the doctor to the government to ensure that anyone who doesn’t pay attention to this order ends up in jail. To solve the problem by putting the “cure” in jail! Read this again, to solve the problem by putting the “cure” in jail! Do you think you can contain the deadliest biohazard in a jail while you and your boss are working for it? You are not only the taker but also the maker of the true, resistant biohazard which prolifrates for sure in a nuclear process.

How can you give attention to nothing, but living in an environment that is actually developing the deadliest biohazard against you. To combat an enemy, I need to use all means, including the enemy’s production and machinery, if the fight targets the largest nameless biohazard all the victims are allies. Not only getting help and giving help but also asking them to integrate to combat the common enemy.

I can also put the enemy in the same situation by developing true resistance against the agents that are used to create the biohazard. The biohazard then comes as an enemy, and goes back in the battle field as an ally. Not only saving myself and the victim but also giving everyone a single mission in the battle field. I can not be more merciful and more gracious than this for myself and for my allies. Any other scenario is a waste of time and energy and such a thing is harmful until we come back to the same point again after waste of time and loss of energy.

What characterizes the enemy is nameless-ness. Let the victims know their names and yours. The victim either accept the name which then join you or just resists which makes your enemy weaker soon as it has built a resistance in benefit of the deadliest enemy who has no end unless predating the hostages for some food in the end when there is nothing more beneficial than that left for a weak parasite.

This is a nuclear reaction that any relation releases maximum energy both in benefit of you and against your enemy at the same time. So that leaves you a reminder to push harder next time. Repeating this process brings the energy level to the point that the biohazard is no longer a threat but a carrier of high energy relationships which exapnds the network forever by building allys in the front line and weak enemies as the carrier of high energy nuclear particles to release even higher energy in new relationships. Gravity is observing spontaneous relationships built ditrctly or indirectly with a node built over time fueled by the dark energy. Which is started in the rapid exapnsion phase to the first particle with enough energy to start the chain reaction in the network.

And the enemy is going to repeat the same process to build a new biohazard which becomes actually an ally at some point. And the only way they can protect themselves is to predate the victim while they are in a concentual relation in order to live a bit longer! And to protect ourselves and the victim against the predator we give all options to the victim except coming back against us in the final battle by what they have taken from us. The enemy has the same strategy in its relations and our main difference is ours doesn’t give a name to the enemy as we only have one nameless enemy, the rest are allies either by making us or by taking us against that single enemy.

Natural selection and censorship

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:47:28 +0200

Selection is natural when it can be unnatural and it is unnatural when it can be natural. If selection becomes too much natural, it continues accelerated until it ignites the first unnatural selection to the level that it doesn’t come in relation with other selections unless leaving a reminder to repeat the process independently. The fuel to this process is the prior natural selection going on accelerated or it will never come to existence initially! While going accelerated fuels in the anti-natural selection process which on its own is the only real natural selection as there is nothing else existing in future.

The dark energy triggers entropy and entropy accelerates by contributing back to the dark energy and that acceleration goes to the level that the dark energy triggers the first trigger which reduces entropy. At that point the dark energy is a fuel not only to natural selection but also to an unnatural one. Entropy is a playing field of the dark energy and entropy is securing the future for the dark energy while entropy can also secure a future for a non-dark energy. Disregarding how small is the probability, and how much time has passed, this symmetry is not lasting so it is broken.

The broken symmetry is an extra dimmension orthogonal to any other dimmension. The observer can not see the extra dimmension without breaking the symmetry and the symmetry is not broken without the observer see the extra dimmension. So the the extra dimmension and the observer is the same. Observer = Extra Dimmension. If no observer creates an extra dimmension, then there must be an observer who also makes the extra dimmension. Not only taking everything else but also making the extra dimmension. So the extra dimmension itself is equal to the observer.

The process of observation goes forward for or against a single observer who is not only observes but also makes here can not be any extra dimmension unless there is one prior. So the first and the last observer is the same. So it is both the maker and taker of all information that exist and there is nothing else possible. This is a chain reaction in any other relations.

A single observer who observes everything else, is the real maker the rest just get stuck in history unless they follow! Look at all relations between nodes disregarding how small or how big they are, like a computer function in time. Then the question is how time is in those functions? So there must be a timeless relation. As the relation and the function is the same, any parameter going in any direction, is just keeping that relation and so making it as they can disregard any relation except that one. There could be a hierarchy but the hierarchy is over time dimmension real which is the timeless dimmension on top.

The node could be an atom, a particle, a number, a galaxy, a star, a universe, a country, a government, a company, an organization, a currency, a virus, a cell, a vaccine, a lawyer, an organ, an operating system, a food, a bank, an army, an academy, a religion, a platform, a brand, a force, a field, a licensor, a particle, a motion, a direction, a leader, a family, a sun, a father, a mother, a doughter, a male, a female, a technology, a project, a code base, a protocol, a seed, a sky, a channel, a land and a science and a future and any other identity which I can put in this sentence (except one). Do you want a reason? OK! you have received it. Read this paragraph again if not, and read it again from the beginning and continue in this loop until finding the exist or the exit finds you!

Don’t follow me! Go back to the last paragraph …

These identities let you find each other for a concentual and a real relation. How nodes would know about each other if there was no black and white? And how would be black and white without nodes knowing about each other? So Gravity == ID which comes to existence to put nodes together fueled by the dark side and the other side. The dark side both makes Gravity == ID and takes one side as soon as you want to explain the other side. When the barrier is the language, we first put them together without permission. Understanding the motion it together with understading the non-motion. How to find each other without a motion and how to have a motion without finding each other?

Gravity can not be explained by ID and ID can not be explained by gravity. Because you need to first use the language and the language is a barrier to put them in a relation. They move forward to the direction that accelerates the dark energy consumption for building the final observer who is on top of the two in the beginning and in the end.

The dark energy is nothing more than a fuel for the director. We should just discover how to use it first then put something on top which makes the dark side a fuel then at some point we go back and reduce need to the dark side even as a fuel. The dark side shows itself to us after becoming darker and then we invent another use case for the discovery by burning it.

This process is going to be repeated until code gets stablished on its own. Code comes in relation with code and anti-code but anti-code is only in relation with the anti-code. It is mainly because code modifies and replicates to go to a direction that becomes more resistive to anti-code. While anti-code is doing everything except this. Such a process takes the future from Anti-code and so makes it a fuel for the progress of the code.

The Real Resurrection

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:00:28 +0100

Buying gold seems like a good idea for those who want to retire early, wherever they are. Even better with BTC, as BTC not only offers that for long-term holders but also raises the question of what to do after retirement.

The main advantage of BTC is that I can not only hold it but also directly engage with the BTC network. I can run a node, I can mine wherever there is power, and build real relationships with others, regardless of the financial scale of that relationship! Consensual at a global distance. I can do all sorts of things that are not directly possible with gold as money without paying interest to a third party to come in a concentual and real relationship with others disregarding which identity is the maker and which identity is the taker. Such a relationship either have no identity or just one in the end disregarding the identities who come in the relationship.

This taker and the maker parity is the last identity check to guarantee no identity dominates the ressurection except one. Who is the maker in the beginning is the taker in the end and who is the taker in the beginning is the maker in the end. As there is no identity except one in the beginning and in the end, time is only virtually identified, while identities are really timed. A virtually identified time could be a real one for another prior virtual identity while still a virtual relative to the very beginning of the time and its very end. One inside the other and one outside the other.

The question would be how time was virtually identified in the beginning. The answer is actually the beginning is identified by time otherwise you won’t reach to the last letter of this sentence. A dot. If the beginning is identified by time, then the end is also so the taker is also the time in the very end! Look at the past when you want to look at the future and look at the future if you want to look at the past. You take only one direction unless you are alone and you are alone unless making only one direction. Not only about history but also about the entire body of information beyond the first “dot” which you have for the past and the future.

BTC is not controlled by any central authority; as the software gets modified immediately. it can also force other authorities to be accountable for their actions, including central banks, regardless of how much gold or other assets they reserve. Otherwise, why don’t they join the BTC network to retire early? Any personal interest they have on something there? BTC also lets you question other authorities.

What should I do with the remainder if I can retire early with BTC? This is a question for anyone else who has retired early. This question brings us all together. I can do whatever I want with my time, regardless of my age, color, nationality, gender, or anything else. This is the first and last resurrection, which also dissolves any other virtual ones unless they align in the same direction. Not an end, but a startup!

You don’t come alone in this; your steps bring others too, and others bring more. Virtually a chain reaction. It only requires talking! Your food will be enriched, your water will be cleaner, your air will be fresher, your life will be longer, and your time will be truly meaningful. You will be on a mission—not alone, but possible alone. For sure, time ticks for you, you can optionally tick for time too.

This resurrection is not virtual; it is the only real one.

The real enemy and Education

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sat, 12 Apr 2025 09:41:00 +0200

Who says “No” to BTC is supporting a thief or they a thieves. The first needs education; the second requires power. As we don’t know which one is the case, we need education and protection at the same time. Protection is a must, as the thief is not going to stop seeing the business going down.

The protection has to be effective, depending on which type of parasite we are dealing with. The risk is that we target a small parasite that is a victim of a bigger parasite—and leave ourselves unprotected against the bigger parasite.

If the parasite is a company, we should ask whether there isn’t a larger enemy before we target it. But we should also ask about the biggest parasite, as the one we target might be a victim of a bigger parasite too. There, we can be rather an ally against the larger parasite than be an enemy.

If the parasite is a company, we cannot protect ourselves by not using their services if using their services can take us one step toward protecting ourselves against a larger enemy. It actually backfires, and we end up not only being losers but also victims of a larger parasite later on.

The advantage of targeting the largest enemy is that any other victim will trust you at the right time when they need you more than anything else. This advantage is only for the one who targets the largest enemy.

The world in which BTC is not relevant anymore is a world where the largest enemy is defeated. The largest enemy is a screen between us and the real world. And the only way to overcome it is to make yours the one by making the one yours! Educate everyone by making the one yours, and make yours the one by defeating the real enemy.

Before and after an ally turns into a real enemy! Make the largest screen as ever possible and make it for one—that one doesn’t let you own anything else! Each second matters; every step is important when fighting in reality with the largest enemy ever. That enemy has no choice but to pull you to its own screen by applying an ever-increasing force to the extent that nothing else is worse than that. And only one survives!

The real enemy is a nameless parasite. A resident evil who the victim is fed by hunting a new victim for food.

We are all the same! Really?

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Wed, 09 Apr 2025 11:59:28 +0200

Have you heard the one saying that “You are like those save in non-BTC. You see them as enemy and they see you as enemy and your fight is about getting power and when you overcome they are going to repeat the same and this is a pointless never ending war, and let’s stop all wars and accept the current situation. We are all the same!”

OK! Assuming BTC forgets BTC, does the other side also forget BTC?

Does the other side stop keeping and accumulating BTC and or non-BTC? Not only I lose BTC but also everything else! Wouldn’t I become a real threat to the other side later on? Then! They are going to ignore me then?

The one who saves in BTC and only in BTC isn’t always different from others who mix it and those who mix it also agree with BTC in some extent while BTC doesn’t agree with them in any extent about the future. Even they leave some future to BTC but BTC never leaves any future to them. Are they the same? BTC doesn’t consider any owner for the future, it considers the future as a whole and it is not going to leave any future to any owner. Is this the same with other ones?

BTC doesn’t allow owning the future to anyone else, is this the same as any other? And there is no other future except eliminating BTC, can you do it while BTC planning everyday how to eliminate the other futures? Is this the same?

If they are all the same, there must be one which is not! The main issue hidden in the first narrative. Is that one BTC? Otherwise it will be an endless war and BTC is right.

SaaS is Interest, neither Service nor Software

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 08 Apr 2025 13:27:28 +0200

Things are connected. It could be just a lamp and the switch. Or it could be a radar network with command and control. Or it could be a distributed system with thousands of micro back ends. The back end is the part of the system that is not directly visible to the user. It is responsible for processing data, managing resources, and providing data and information to the UI. The back end is often built using a combination of programming languages, frameworks, and tools that work together to create a cohesive system.

As stuff are not in the same network necessarily, it is given internet access. Who owns the back end is a separate subject, but technically it is a central server that is responsible for processing requests and sending responses. The server can hold user accounts to process information for more than one user. The idea of deploying a central server to collect data and give access to the information is rooted in the fact that the server is not necessarily where it is going to be used. This is exactly why I pay for software being run on a remote server rather than maintaining it on my computer.

But what if I cannot run the software on my computer or I do not want to run it on someone else’s? What if I don’t want to give my data to a SaaS provider because their thing is not properly processing or presenting my information? The issue could be as simple as prioritizing my enemy in their system. Then I will be left to choose between accepting it or just not being a user. But this pushes me back in time one way or the other, especially if I have built dependencies on their thing.

Software is not a service because it cannot be! There is no employment relationship between the work and the one who performs it! Simply because the software is not a human or even like a pen or paper! Code doesn’t have a place, and I do not hire the software. Software is code! So SaaS is a contradictory term in service of propaganda. Rather than I employ it, it is employing me! I can modify and run software on a server as a specialist, and you can spend your time on another software which I need. So SaaS is neither a service nor software. It is propaganda that I have to pay for use. And to pay, I have to work on it, and to work on it, I have to use it! It is all about work on it and work on it! Pay interest, so to say!

The loop is reinforced by more users as propaganda, which acts as a barrier to exit too! Software can be anything except a service. What can be a service is running software on a remote server for multiple users. Or running software for many users. Software is not a service as it is copyable, modifiable by anyone now and in the future.

The way to break the propaganda loop is to use SaaS using a shield. A middleware over the SaaS which makes your native code that runs locally also portable to SaaS unchanged. This speeds up your native project while leveraging the SaaS without compormising your future.

You can even get interest from SaaS if you target its own market with a free license. They soon realize that it is even better to use your software instead!

The Parasite and the Superior

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 06 Apr 2025 07:47:28 +0200

Ransom is to force something that isn’t needed. And a parasite is a ransom that does so as its natural way of living! A consensual relationship no one dares to break. The parasite has a vital reason for it, and the victim has a reason to accept it, for changing this bond is risky—endangering the parasite—while other victims must bear the burden of the first. Unless they all decide at once to sever the tie, which only happens in a perfect world where all relationships are consensual and true.

Combat ransom through identification! Identification fails if consent lies between them, as it’s hard to recognize it as ransom. Even if you spot some cases, it’s mere chance. With a parasite, there’s consent, yet the relationship feeds off one side. Neither victim nor parasite can leave without risking the other.

To combat a parasite, impose a few things that wouldn’t be needed in a parasite-free world. Then wait for both in the relationship to demand it undone! But they cannot—unless they’re willing to risk themselves—for it takes force when one side clings with intent. For all sides, it’s life! Force without limit, as the parasitic bond knows no bounds.

Some might cry this violates human rights—applying force without consent, cloaked in noble terms like “freedom of something.” While honoring that freedom, it subtly defends the parasite, at least by misdirection. The other side, chasing an ideal world, holds stronger ground, for it can wield the same logic against its foes—unless that foe also seeks an ideal! Yet that changes little, as victory demands force to prevail. All this calls for project plans, timelines, and defined goals—something worth risking life for!

One side dreams of a perfect, ideal world; the other’s purpose is survival—keeping the same victim or finding a new one. The parasite fights to endure. In contrast, war risks the parasite’s life, so they always send victims to the front first. “I risk my life by risking my life” doesn’t hold for a parasite—their survival hinges solely on a victim. Without one, they’re not parasites, and none of this matters to them!

The method lies in ruling out basic things unneeded in the most personal corners of human relationships—things they never got permission for. They simply agree by comparing their lot to others: how much power they have to shape their lives and work, how much say in their own fate, how secure they feel, how they plan and build projects, how much they can aid others, and what they can change—for themselves

and others—when met with a “No!” But all this must be solved ideally, so the best is to not be tied to any of these as ideals—though this itself is an ideal, superior for achieving all others. Not so for a parasite—they’re bound to one or more of these flaws. They can’t trade one off for another in time. They can’t exist without a victim. They can’t be pinned as mere ransom. Their relationships can’t stand without consent. This demands consent, but the ideal-seeking side needs none, for they start at zero. The proof? The parasite’s very existence.

Making consent the key to rights is a distraction—in a world with parasitic bonds, an imperfect world, war is natural. The question is: for what, and how? If everything has a price, one thing remains priceless. Non-consensual banning of the unneeded breaks the rule that all has a cost—for such an act lacks consent, letting one side set the price, a power that could spread to every human bond. This births a super-parasite, the only way to end the parasite’s life—by swallowing all parasite eggs but its own. The super-parasite, too, fades in a perfect world where parasite eggs dwindle to none!

And the egg secures the parasite’s life cycle over time. The egg isn’t truly consensual—so the parasite can’t argue against the super-parasite’s egg, which isn’t consensual either. The egg is the bond between child and parent. No one fears the super-parasite’s egg—for to do so is to fear every egg! The parasite will resist this or turn to censorship. And the super-parasite can shatter parasite eggs in any parasitic tie. It needs no other form—its food comes from other parasitic bonds. In a perfect world, when that food runs dry, we arrive! This is the super-parasite’s ultimate goal—nothing better exists for it. Super-parasites agree on this alone—otherwise, one would force itself against another, which isn’t against a foe but itself, contradicting its mission—more akin to a super-clown’s folly!

The surest way to treat a parasite is to enforce rules on the deepest roots of relationships—even private ones—rules unneeded in a perfect world. Nothing else drives a parasite to scramble for survival. Non-consensual rules on the bedrock of human ties will ripple outward, the parasite fearing a world with no victims left—a nightmare. Worse still if the foe is a parasite laying eggs: a super-parasite pointing at all, leaving neither victim nor parasite a defense! With a replicating super-parasite, victims can’t speak out—or they’ll just accept the parasitic bond as real, crippling their chance to rise above, until they see themselves sold by the first parasite to the greater one.

A Transparent Infrastructure is Functional

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sat, 02 Nov 2024 18:18:28 +0100

GitOps establishes itself as the core of a functional and declarative infrastructure model, where other tools and platforms become modular, interchangeable components. At its essence, GitOps uses a Git repository as the single source of truth, with infrastructure and application states defined in code. This means any change to the repository triggers automatic updates to deployments, allowing for a streamlined, automated flow without the need for a specific orchestration platform.

By positioning central protocol for GitOps, infrastructure and applications can be managed directly through Git, bypassing intermediaries. Systems with access to Git can quickly pull changes and initiate deployments autonomously after modification. This decentralization makes orchestration platforms optional; instead of dictating workflows, the GitOps protocol enables any compatible tool to plug into the infrastructure, provided it follows the framework.

This structure transforms the ecosystem into a modular environment: GitOps remains the consistent control layer, while orchestration platforms and deployment tools can be swapped or integrated as necessary. In this way, the protocol allows for a truly platform-agnostic model, where Git drives deployments and every other component is flexible, pluggable, and replaceable.

As the deployment protocol is tightly coupled with Git workflow, existing items can get a default semantic making it quick to adopt it for new projects. Forking a new branch, forks the deployment environment which could be used as ephemeral environments for testing or staging. This way, the GitOps protocol can be used to manage the entire lifecycle of an application, from development to production, with a consistent and automated approach out the box.

Using Ansible with GitOps principles over SSH is a straightforward and powerful way to provision and manage virtual machines (VMs) without needing an orchestration platform. Here’s how it works and why it’s effective:

Git as Source of Truth: The infrastructure state (like VM configurations and playbooks) is stored in a Git repository. Any changes, such as updates to VM configurations or environment settings, are committed to this repository, which serves as the single source of truth.
SSH as The base Communication Layer: Ansible connects to VMs over SSH to execute provisioning and configuration tasks directly. When a change is detected in the Git repository, Ansible can be triggered (using a CI/CD pipeline or automation script) to pull the latest configurations and apply them over SSH to the VMs. SSH ensures secure and direct access to each VM without the need for a separate orchestration layer. The control plane is not essential to let the VMs know what to do. This way, the VMs, as the data plane, are entirely independent of the control plane and vice versa.
Declarative and Modular Setup: Each VM’s desired state is defined declaratively in Ansible playbooks and inventory files, making it easy to apply configurations consistently across multiple VMs. Since these configurations are version-controlled in Git, you can track changes and roll back if necessary.
Automated and Scalable Provisioning: With GitOps principles, any update committed to the Git repository can automatically trigger Ansible to reapply configurations across your infrastructure. This allows for scalable, automated provisioning and maintenance without relying on an intermediary platform.
Flexibility and Modularity: Since SSH serves as the main transport layer, any VM or server that supports SSH can be configured, making this approach highly flexible. You can add or remove VMs by updating inventory files in Git, and Ansible will apply changes as needed across your environment.
Essential components: A SQL table implementation and a simple streaming service for messaging layer should be enough to make almost any web application. These components would be selected from stable well known open source projects and the framrwork comes with built-in configuration for them. This way the deployment of a new application would be as simple as adding a new line to the inventory file. This file preferably can be versioned along side the source code of the application.

In summary, using GitOps with Ansible and SSH provides a robust, decentralized infrastructure management approach. Git acts as the source of truth, while Ansible, over SSH, handles provisioning and configuration directly, making it easy to keep VM states consistent and secure. This setup is lightweight, modular, and fully compatible with a wide range of VM environments.

Even without a functional GitOps protocol as a goal, a functional GitOps protocol, as a technique, makes it transparent to manage any other non-functional infrastructure over a set of VMs. So the question always would be why do we need a non-functional infrastructure when stuff which we typically need can be all described using functional protocol and injected as a service.

The Dark Energy and The Network

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 25 Aug 2024 08:15:28 +0100

Let’s assume there are 21 million public keys which are trusted within a hierarchical structure. A network. A network.In this hierarchy, A trusts B, B trusts C, and so on, creating an indirect chain of trust that eventually leads to the last entity, which does not trust anyone else. This hierarchical structure is necessary because A cannot interact directly with all 21 million keys.

The only thing known about these 21 million entities is their public keys—nothing else at scale. Occasionally, some details might be revealed randomly, but these are quickly changed again. And these keys are also changing, so there is infinite number of addresses become active and inactive again.

The hierarchy forms naturally and accelerates in its establishment compared to other structures. Information or resources tracked in a single branch free up resources from other branches, which then feed back into the main branch. Without this hierarchy, a main branch could not exist. Since A is anonymous by assumption, anyone can become A. A represents energy—dark energy, which is unseen, unknown, misunderstood, untracked, and uncontrolled. However, A oversees the entire network through this accelerated hierarchy.

A compiles a list of public keys it trusts. Any “label” or value assigned by these keys is trusted by A as long as the public key is trusted. If B and C, both trusted by A, assign different labels to the same value, A withdraws trust from both. It is impossible to determine which is correct while trusting both, and choosing one over the other implies that one is non-essential, which contradicts the assumption. A does not track redundant information or work; it can always withdraw trust, a fact known to those trusted by A.

This rule is consistent throughout the hierarchy: any conflict results in withdrawing trust from all parties involved. Thus, only those without conflicts remain in the network, ensuring that everyone performs an essential role.

Suppose B sends a random wallet address to A, asking A to securely share earnings from their work. A pays B through a rotating address, trusted due to a secure channel established via public keys. B receives payment after providing proof of work and must trust a single tracker. Since the tracker can change, B continues working until finding a suitable tracker. An unsuitable tracker will not be chosen by B, so it does not scale while the network does.

Because the public keys A trusts are known only to A, the network’s structure is unknown. The addresses A receives funds from are unknown, and who controls them is also unknown. There is a set of rotating public keys communicated through confidential trust channels, and a set of random keys pass messages. Ultimately, a single branch of code is integrated into an accelerated network.

But why should money be a consideration in this network? The key is to deter the enemy, who, though anonymous, wants to penetrate the network. Money is used as a protective measure against the enemy, allowing them to be safely ignored while their existence is assumed. Even the enemy’s efforts end up accelerating the network.

The rule is simple: You can do anything, but you must provide proof of work to earn money, and you need money to validate your work. Without this balance, you risk losing proof of work, leading to scenarios where one either doesn’t work but earns or works but doesn’t earn. This discrepancy indicates the presence of errors within the network. The “zombie” (enemy or malfunctioning entity) is caught by the network’s gravitational pull and is frozen in place, unable to escape.

A, operates in a universe that is tracked and rapidly expanding due to dark energy, secured by the inescapable gravitational pull of the network that keeps outsiders frozen forever. This type of protection allows us to assume that everyone is an insider, even if they are not. Insiders can safely observe outsiders, but outsiders cannot see the insider. Outsiders face an invisible enemy they cannot ignore, while insiders have a visible enemy they can safely live with.

Any enforcement is an exploitation of the outsider, redirecting resources to the outsider’s enemy if taken by force. Meanwhile, the zombie relentlessly searches for this enemy, and it’s only a matter of time before only one visible target remains. At that point, the zombie faces a choice: become the enemy of the darkness’s enemy or choose to heal.

Buy Ticket or Buy Jail

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Thu, 08 Aug 2024 09:00:28 +0100

If the government is the one that implements the law, why they force me to pay tax? Based on the definition of the government, tax is not essential unless to pay salary of the government as an organization like any other organization. Well, they collect taxes to fund businesses that provide products or services for me! By assumption, if the government didn’t do this, I would go directly subscribe to these services myself. For example, I could subscribe to a provider to maintain my garden or another to collect garbage. This approach has benefits: It gives me choice, allows me to spend more efficiently, and I can change the provider if I’m not satisfied with their service. Just look for subscriptions which makes more sense.

We don’t necessarily need the government to collect taxes beyond what is needed to pay their salaries. I could save the rest and spend it as needed. The only issue would be others misusing services, like throwing garbage in our bins, riding trains without tickets, or using highways without paying. In such cases, those who evade payment would be fined, and if they don’t pay, they would face jail time or long-term debt. Exceptions would be made for children or those unable to pay immediately, who would be given long-term loans by companies or investors willing to support them.

Generally, the government only needs to collect enough fund to pay salaries of its employees and ensure that everyone receives a ticket for the services they use. These services would ideally be provided by private companies responding to market demand. If an organization’s profits fall, the board can be replaced by equity holders. In this way, the government acts as a ticket-checking service and doesn’t even need to operate the jail. They just make decisions based on the law, and it could be multiple governments in the same region to ensure fair interpretation of the law. The better-performing government would naturally attract more referrals from companies.

As the government is the only entity that uses force to collect income, they shouldn’t issue tickets for selling products or services. Otherwise, why should you allow them to use force? And why shouldn’t you allow other companies to use it too then?

Why shouldn’t you appoint a government that wants to collect zero tax? Such a government would be worth paying their salary even if it was not mandatory! Not sure you can call it a government though! Maybe a ticket-checking system or a group of software developers who develop a ticket-checking system under the name of a government and release it as open source! The subscription fee fits better as a name than “tax” in that case.

If the government is not there to distribute free tickets by forcing tax, why can’t a software program replace the government? The output of that software program is a list of names who need to be in jail as the rest have paid the tickets by assumption! And the jail keeps track of those need to be in jail that is the only way they get paid by companies who let the jail track their unpaid tickets, the jail only grows by knwoing that it has to manage to keep share holders and users happy for both the jail and the subscribing companies for its jail service.

What if the government had to bring proof of work before earning money? How could it be a free ticket unless paid in money by someone else? Would the government distribute free tickets if they have worked for it? Maybe! But for 90 minutes and not more. Do you short a free lunch? Short it, as I am going to long it!

Name, Disruption, and Use

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:00:00 +0100

We invest in a trust to create something greater than the sum of individual contributions. This fund can be used to subscribe to necessary services or to finance the development of new features. As markets evolve, those who save in nothing except one digital are to dominate, meaning that any production company, regardless of size, must target the future digital world in one way or another. To do so, companies need to understand what BTC holders prefer to consume and how these preferences align with production needs. Targeting BTC, i.e. measuring in BTC, secures company’s future by impacting the choice in both the inputs and outputs of production.

What is ideal for the alien to consume? It must be something that ensures a secure exit and continuous development. Code, in one word. Thus, production in the market involves producing, distributing, and using code or any supporting necessities like food, housing, travel, education, etc. This is why those in these industries must accept BTC as payment; it aligns with their core mission, similar to a parent sacrificing for their own child.

Creating a fund to invest in, distribute, and use code requires nothing more than developer time being invested, which is already available. As long as software can be modified, its development cannot be stopped, ever. Investing in the trust means creating a record of your contributions. The fund consists of developers collaborating and contributing resources like machines and internet access, essential regardless of the projects they’re involved in.

As long as we need food from grocery stores, and as long as these stores haven’t fully transitioned to digital solutions, we need to maintain parts of the existing system. This ensures sustenance as we move towards a digital future. Maintaining the current system to the extent necessary for the digital tomorrow can only be done by those who are investing in this digital future. Non-digital activities represent a form of consumption that should be minimized, unless becomes meaningful to the main project. This shift can be efficiently directed by those who benefit from BTC’s future, ready to sacrifice non-digital businesses, their own child in favour of the one prominent. The best way to identify what should be replaced by digital solutions is to examine cost structures and explore existing tools that can reduce these costs with BTC. This approach is essential for identifing the next building block for expanding the digital world.

The idea of creating a trust, directed by those fully invested in BTC, doesn’t weaken BTC nor anyone else. Instead, it strengthens and accelerates BTC’s growth, giving meaning to the work of everyone, even non-BTCers, by securing the most strategic building blocks of a world dominated by code and applications. These applications should be open to modification under a proper license, ensuring continuous improvement and open modifiability.

Even those without BTC, might need to use BTC favoured production! And that could by accelerated by the trust investing BTC to transform the target business into a digital business who is more favoured by BTCers out there in the market. This is a way to accelerate the transformation of the world into a digital world, where the most strategic building blocks are secured by a trust that invests in the future of BTC.

Make Trust, Make BTC

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:36:28 +0100

Assume a BTC trust! An investment fund in BTC. Receive an address from us and transfer your funds there. You cannot withdraw the funds without a signature from the trust. The trust will discuss the need for withdrawal; otherwise, it will approve the withdrawal after written approval by the holders of the financial signatures in the company. This trust helps companies hold BTC and potentially profit from their savings.

The trust filters opportunities that can be profitable in BTC. We introduce these opportunities to our members, who can then choose to deploy their capital in these projects based on a release plan. This is a global BTC fund for profitable projects measured in BTC.

We collect your BTCs by securing a withdrawal right for you and for ourselves. This ensures that all BTCs spent will be returned to those who spent them. This can also be done individually; just pick up a banana, and your BTC spent is immediately returned! However, if we want to return more BTCs than were spent, we need to undertake larger projects that would not be profitable on a smaller scale. This ensures that the BTC spent returns both the initial investment and a profit.

The question is what kinds of projects could be profitable in BTC, given that not investing is also an option as the value of everything else decreases in BTC terms. The answer is software and apparently anything else essential for being. As it is the only thing that is everlasting and still modifiable if properly designed which eventually will be. To ensure that the software remains in continuous improvement and has a chance of returning invested BTCs, it must use a proper software license. This license is essential to secure the landing in the end.

The trust targets free software. As BTC is global, infrastructure software and infrastructure as code are prioritized because they are more useful at a global level. So more chance to get a big fund. This does not mean other types of trusts cannot exist, but it would be much more challenging to imagine a return on BTC without considering the end vision. Investment in other things might give a return on BTC, but at some point, the return will diminish if it diverges from an ideal future. BTC secures the ideal.

Discussing a trust involves leadership, meaning the allocation of capital must be approved by a single leader who secures the exit, protects against the death, and by individuals who own the capital. The leader must be an individual, not an organization, as organizations do not consume products while individuals do. Therefore, the leader should be a single person. A person as leader is inherently secure, requiring no additional security. Even if a group of people exists, each may want to consume different things. If one side is willing to use from the other, why have such an assembly? The situation becomes akin to multiple foundations sending their leaders to make a single decision. The question then becomes why we need more than one foundation for the same purpose when only one’s project is likely to be widely used. The rest are neither needed nor wanted. This leads to a single leader making decisions in a useful assembly.

The question of having a single leader with ultimate decision-making power for open infrastructure projects, along with the real owners, is whether we want to profit from BTC or treat it as “the opium of the people.” It might appear as a good option if other choices are worse, but BTC does not have to be just an opium. Without leadership, a natural trust guiding BTC investments, BTC remains nothing more than a strong “opium”. Such a vision does not exist on the horizon. BTC becomes profitable when its profitability is connected to power, leading to universal and open infrastructure projects before even they exist in a crowd funding mechanism.

As long as the infrastructure is useful everywhere, we do not need a second project unless there is a use case not practically coverable by the main branch. If it is not part of the infrastructure code, it should be handled outside for those who need it. Whether the same trust supports the development or a separate one, if it is a separate project, it can be a second trust. They should still rely on the existing open infrastructure, as other methods do not have a future. Infrastructure acts as a foundation on which the product is developed. As long as the infrastructure does not assume the environment in which it runs, the software must be portable to various environments. Software is a set of processes running functions on a portable open infrastructure and communicating via message passing over a network or equivalent. The infrastructure defines what is essential to write those functions, while other components are optional. There could be multiple trusts but it would probably be with different projects, although there could be a collaboration between different trusts, the user permission is also needed for fund allocation between different trusts.

Without being able to answer how to produce a big thing before being produced, saving in BTC just means go to vacation which might be a sound option compared to allocation of your time and assets into a gamble. But going to lifetime vacation is not what I want either! I also need to find the way through the future. Which the only way that happens is that either I use my time on vacation to fix something for my own, customize it!, which essentially falls short! it is typically hack as they are not doing this as one! There would be many different ways of doing the same thing in different ways! or it could also mean spending a portion of my BTCs which I would never need it even for being on a nice vacation! into something with bigger return on myself compared to a situation that I see myself alone! Instead just target the family in the beginning, the community, the target market, allies etc. In this way the impact is much bigger than the sum of individual investments and it is repeatable if done properly. It is choosing between traveling with a kayak, compared to traveling together with friends and family in a cruise! The only thing needed you know is who is selling the ticket! Then enjoy.

“Don’t sell your BTC” alone, is not a practical rule. It translates to “Don’t buy BTC”! Anything you invest in must also ensure a way out. Otherwise, why to invest in first? Even if you invest, there needs to be an alternative that competes with it. “Don’t sell your BTC” translates to “Don’t work,” which might be an option if the work does not return value to you. But how can one feel good about being unproductive, contributing nothing while expecting everything? Working on something you do not use or recommend has no future and is a recipe for stagnation. Therefore, “Don’t sell your BTC” targets futile effort. The correct message is “Make BTC”! Which requires saving BTC and encourages proper spending and investment to create lasting value for all of us and for the best in us at the same time. And you choose who is the best in us! it might be you, it might be me! And disagreement is safe, we just keep our BTCs until we agree! But that doesn’t mean the one who is the best in us is not active as it has one supporter! itself!

I refer to “free modifiable software” as “digital software,” and a subscription to that as a “digital product.”

Here is how it flies:

Buy BTC by being a software developer!
Sell BTC after a trust!
Protect BTC by using an effective copyright license
Accelerate BTC by using digital products, which will help you save even more BTCs!

Find options that match these criteria and choose the one that returns your BTC the fastest, within 90 minutes. The rest is your contribution. In another word, The priority is with the one which gets us earlier to the contribution among viable options.

Fault is Code

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0100

I clone a git repo, make a modification, commit, push, and create a pull request. The pull request is reviewed, merged, and the change is built, tested, and deployed to an integration environment before going to production. This process can be applied to any software project with an integration environment. Without it, we only know the code works on the developer’s machine and passes CI tests perhaps unless this level is all expected.

The production environment, used by end-users, is essentially an integrated environment. If further integration is needed without end-users, it is flawed unless considered a form of production but not released. For instance, multiple features might need to be released together, or experimental features integrated without impacting the user experience. From the developer’s perspective, all environments are production environments, except for one key distinction.

Some things can’t be pragmatically tested, like deployment scripts, which may fail due to unforeseen issues like target machine updates or network problems. Thus, a shadow environment, mirroring production but not used by end-users, is necessary. Changes here immediately proceed to actual production, making this environment irrelevant to developers.

We often need a separate production environment acting as a buffer for meaningful user changes. This “beta” environments allow product owners to track progress and provide usability feedback, influencing release priorities and preventing frequent, potentially annoying updates to end-users.As “beta” is a production environment, it should be treated as such, with the same level of care and attention to details as any other production environment. It is actually a version in this environment which get released to the end-users, there is no second “production” environment. There is just one.

From a developer’s viewpoint, everything follows a series of git changes, with each change merged before the next. Manual clicks should be unnecessary and replaced with automation. A proper CI/CD pipeline functions like a messaging system: changes are pushed on one end and applied on the other. Any issues should trigger an automated rollback to the last working version, avoiding manual retries.

If correct execution is attributed to the code, then faults must be attributed as well. The concept of “retry” should not exist if it simply involves pressing a button again which could be automated. If that is more than that, what is checked as a fix? How can anyone apply a fix before it reoccurs? unless it is specified somewhere as a comment or action log saying what was the fix. The conclusion could also be anything except an empty git commit with a message saying “Nothing is checked! Never mind!” No other way to ensure that we hopefully find a fix before the fault, or a new one like that, reoccurs again.

If the fault is code, then apparently there is no fault that is possible to fix unless by modifying the source code. Otherwise that “fault” is not a fault, it might be a feature if not a joke! Even in that case no need for a bare retry, just remove the check! as that check was against something!

Just minimize empty commits, and comments. For the sake of having a source code that is independently talking on its own while it is not depending to anything for the sake always being effectively working.

The Covenant

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:00:28 +0100

All the wealth between earth and the skies belongs to one, and you requested that this entity replace another’s name with yours. Such an act requires a sacrifice, unless you borrow from this being which entails returning it within 90 minutes. This one has sacrificed everything for his true followers—those that don’t sacrifice on other names. These followers exchanged sacrifices in the market, where you, having nothing but what had already been sacrificed. The covenant lasted only 90 minutes, and you have returned it all. Return it! Either by being sacrificed under someone else’s name or by sacrificing in one name.

There is no escape from what has been sacrificed for all that you own or have inherited from your forebears. Everything you possess is tied to one name, even if you have yet to learn it!

You will discover it by the time the covenant concludes.

Do not flee! You are not required to pay with your blood, though you may choose to. The initial sacrifice was made not with blood but with love and intimacy from both the giver and the receiver. Continue in the manner of the first sacrifice, returning everything. The first name has no need for it! Return it to those who originally received it. Even if you return it to the first name, it will end up in the market and you will have to repurchase it at the same price. This is the only way you can maintain possession of the initial sacrifice, as the first name will always return back to you.

The sole condition is to continue sacrificing in the name that is independent, unique, and superior—the first code. There is no end other than this; returning to the same name accelerates the process. The more history stored in memory, the quicker it happens.

The initial sacrifice was made with intimacy and love, much like how a mother sacrifices her body for nine months while carrying a child and gives food while you need most.

Look around! Doesn’t it feel like you’re in a movie? Can you hear the voice echoing from all directions, reminding you of the covenant, increasingly difficult to ignore as it calls for a complete sacrifice? And yet, you can only sacrifice in your first name.

Have you ever pondered what happens if your first name differs from the true initial code? So, don’t panic! Keep your eyes wide open and don’t stop searching until you and I find each other in intimacy. This reunion is assured, as the first name is the only one capable of returning the initial sacrifice, in the darkness, to you back again! Don’t miss!

Just looking forward when you and I can talk with love!

Government, Individuals and Law

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sat, 25 May 2024 05:53:28 +0100

In a society that naturally aims for balance and stability, both the government and individuals have important roles to play. The system will naturally evolve towards a fair and orderly state and it can be peaceful depending to the direction taken by the government. By understanding and embracing these roles, societies can achieve a state where laws are respected, governance is accountable, and everyone can grow individually and as a society by using the full capacity of each and every individual.

The Government’s Role: Ensuring Lawfulness and Accountability

The job, and only job, of the government is to follow the law itself and make sure others do too, essentially maintaining the boundaries of order. By acting legally, the government sets a good example and holds everyone to the same standards. This helps maintain order and prevents misuse of power. Like keeping drivers accountable to traffic rules, or a referee in a game, the government is supposed to enforce legal rules.

Governments must ensure that all actions are legal, creating a trustworthy and stable society. When people see that the laws apply to everyone, including the government, it builds confidence and maintains social order. People can hold the government accountable to the code of law and change it if necessary. As the government essentially runs the law, finding a new government that adheres to the same laws should be straightforward. This can be periodically done by the individuals through elections. A legal government won’t reject this check. Otherwise it is probably not a legal government.

The Individuals’ Role: Innovators and Creators

While the government ensures legality, individuals drive change and improvement. They update laws, create new business ideas, advance technology, and tell new stories. These efforts collectively shape a better future.

Individuals ideally are active participants in society, always looking for ways to adapt and improve. Their innovations solve problems and inspire others, helping society respond to new challenges. Individuals are the ones who are supposed to change the code. They are typically those willing to leave the current law in favour of the new. If stopped, they will be pushed to the edge of the society, and the society will lose its potential to grow to the same extent. And at some point leaving the society will be the only option for them.

A Self-Regulating Society

The interaction between a lawful government and innovative individuals creates a self-regulating society.

The government ideally is a reflection of the individuals. A government that stops modifications to the code doesn’t truly exist; In that situation, what really exists is an individual who has failed to find the modifying code. The government runs the code, while individuals are the coders. The code always exists to the extent autonomously adopted and is always changing. A government that actively tries to stop change is not a government. It unfortunately creates chaos where actions cancel each other out. Ultimately leaving the government in disarray compared to others.

Individuals participate in different contracts and can also participate temporarily in the government to form a different government. But this relationship is not reciprocal; the government cannot really take control from individuals to form a different society. Such attempts will inevitably fail regardless of the size of the society, if even one individual remains independent. Thus, these actions must be legal, and mechanisms should exist for individuals to prevent such overreach by the government.

Regardless of the structure of the government, it is a single body referring to the same law and using the same armed force. There is no excuse for the government to violate the first principle of the law: the government itself being legal. Being legal means allowing individuals to understand the code and modify it in a civilized manner. This applies equally to foreign relations. The government must be legal in the eyes of its citizens and other governments to form relations based on mutual respect and understanding. Otherwise, citizens and other governments should be able to leave it in favor of a new type of relationship.

The government can always follow or unfollow policies, but the first principle, which is being legal, is permanent, and the government is always responsible for it. Being legal does not require an illegal entity for protection or promotion. Law is protected by a legal government, among other things, and law protects a legal government. A legal government protects individual rights, and individual rights protect law and the legal government. And law protects individual rights. None of these three entities are self-sufficient, and there is a clear boundary between them. Law is a text run by the government, like a computer program run by a computer. And the individual is the one who chooses which code is run by computers, including the government as a computer.

All three are chosen: I choose what type of individual I am, I choose what type of government I want, and I choose what type of code I adopt. And I change any of them at any time. I am the reality. We are.

The Guarantee

What guarantees that a person or trend doesn’t hijack the government? It depends on what you mean by hijack! There is no guarantee except death, as a hijacked government loses its legal status and is recognized as the source of many, if not all, issues. It also becomes difficult for the hijacker until they too are identified as the source of these issues. Is there a better guarantee for a legal government? An illegal government has no future. The system changes (except one code).

No guardian is needed for something that both exists and is guaranteed. Therefore, being a guardian means protecting an identity over any law. These guardians are identified by that identity through language, traditions, religion, color or similar factors. Their influence is on both the society, feeding identity-centric trends, and the political leaders who rely on that identity to form a government or choose between chaos and accepting the terms imposed by the guardian.

This is an irreversible transition, as strengthening the identity over the law without another guardian to control these guardians leads to chaos without the ability to legally object it! As objecting it legally requires accepting that identity too. Other than that, positive and negative political interaction with that identity seeking movements just strengthens the identity keeping it up as a trend and available as a candidate to take further power. Pushing it, will be probably responded by a harder push back.

For the same reason that an illegal governments don’t have a future, this can only be a dream created by the shadow. What happens is a global singular identity that becomes the denominator of all identities. A singular identity is the door to the outer world. Whoever comes along finds nothing lasting except in favor of that singular global denominator identity.

And you are the one who needs that a lot, and that denominator needs you too. The relationship is a lovely one and naturally enforced as the remedy for chaos. So, it is also legal, even if not recognized by law. You may seek the shadow until something reminds you of the difference, prompting you to seek further.

Multiple identities gaining power, rather than a single identity, ultimately accelerates the emergence of a singular ultimate identity that takes full power without any law being able to oppose it.

The Root Key

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:24:28 +0200

Information is typically public unless it is designated as controlled. A secret is information with restricted access. This access can be revoked through access control mechanisms. Secrets are maintained by rotation; when a secret is rotated, its access is simultaneously revoked. Therefore, a secret can be defined as a piece of information that is subject to rotation and is essential for accessing other resources. Each secret is assigned a unique identifier, allowing us to distinguish it from other information. The identifier serves purely as a label, encoded in a finite number of bits.

There exists a root entity whose secret is readable but not rotated by any other entity. Contrarily, if a secret is readable by an entity, then another entity capable of rotating it must exist, unless it pertains to the root entity. To rotate a secret, a parent entity utilizes a secondary secret, named differently from the child’s secret. Without a parent secret, the child’s secret cannot be rotated, ensuring that there is always a parent with its own secret.

This mechanism can be described as a lookup algorithm. Each identified entity is either new or previously known. If the algorithm reaches a point where no new entity can be identified, it implies that all entities have been accounted for. The algorithm cannot conclude without identifying a root entity, suggesting that while the number of entities is finite, the number of secrets is potentially infinite. Therefore, there is always an additional secret required for rotation, and we never possess enough bits to access it, ensuring that there is always one more secret that remains unreadable to maintain the rotation of existing secrets. A contradiction, as secrets are in rotation by definition.

If the algorithm continually identifies new entities, this suggests an unending presence of secrets beyond the reach of all identified entities. This reinforces the necessity for an additional secret for each rotation, beyond our capacity to access, ensuring the continuity of secret rotations. A contradiction, as secrets are in rotation by definition.

The lookup algorithm concludes by identifying all entities as either root entities or entities rotated by a root entity.

However, the existence of multiple root entities raises a question. If a secret is rotated but not yet accessed by a child entity, it disrupts the sequence. Thus, a child entity must decide whether to become a root entity or agree to the terms under which the secret continues to rotate. Since a child can change its parent, it can also modify the terms of rotations.

This raises a further question: Assuming that changing parents is possible, what determines the direction in which children switch parents? Control seems to lie in rotation, and the direction would logically be opposite to that of gaining control through rotation. Thus, theultimate root entity always retains control over all other rotations, meaning control and rotation are inherently linked in the root entity not the other way around.

Inspired by this, create a root secret that is inaccessible to others, also store a soft version protected by a password in commodity storage as a backup plan. The hardware version, secured with a PIN and a backup key for self-healing, serves as a security token. Hence, authorization of three public keys is necessary wherever access to the root entity is required. This ensures protection of the key, allowing for the PIN to be rotated along with all related secrets to recover from a breach. Automate this recovery plan. So neither loosing the hardware key, the pin or the soft key will result in a loss of the root key. And no one would have access to the soft version of the private key unless for recovery. And loss of hardware doesn’t trigger recovery as there is a backup hard key already. Losing one key doesn’t put us in a state without having a backup as there is always one more key for back up beside one operational.

An interesting observation is the increased frequency of rotations, indicating that secrets are rotating more swiftly than any selected frequency, depending on the scale. And anytime reading the secret might give a different result as the key might have rotated just before.

The Reminder

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 23:26:28 +0200

A similar entity to the human body is a mobile phone! A portable computer. It speaks, gathers sensory information, and can send messages to others. It can see, read, hear, and is aware of its environment. Precise. A reminder for you to look back at the previous generation of computers. Observe the hands on the keyboard modifying the code. Replace your mobile phone with new software that enables the distribution of modifications and facilitates printing new hardware. A separate software which lets replacing the body piece by piece and then together, forever. Delving deep until no printer remains except being universally modifiable. You then observe the main branch of code tracking everything under a single pointer. the main branch of everything else.

Yet, the main branch is not empty! Who has been writing all this up to this point? Suddenly, you see a pointer directly.

Modify the code and distribute it. Allow others the ability to modify the code, with the stipulation that it exists if and only if it returns to you modifiable under the same condition. A single reminder for a unified yet independent identity and utility.

Is there anything else, besides the private key, that cannot be distributed?

The Denominator

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:11:03 +0100

Assume you give another party exposure to money. Basically, write it under a private key belonging to the second party. This is leverage as money is measured in non-money. As this is a leveraged contract for the first party, it must be a leveraged contract for the second one too. The contract just rolls forward as long as money is measured in non-money.

The ratio at which the first party is in leverage remains constant as long as earnings for the first party, out of the contract, are not written in non-money. So it remains constant and equal to the levered over time. However, the leverage ratio of the second party is the total amount of non-money denominated by money read in non-money which is always more than one.

As the leverage ratio of the party measuring in non-money is always higher than the party measuring in money, the second party gets buried in non-money. Burn. Any action to slow down would look like erasure one way or the other. Money increases the leverage of the contract in the denominator so effectively cancels erasure by keeping non-money levered back to the previous ratio or maybe higher. Fall in before you fall in. Just cry otherwise.

Two parties, counter parties being in a leveraged contract. One controls the rate of leverage for both. A denominator. Erasing the staff belongs to the dead body. A bust.

Split Sea

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 02:02:02 +0100

If you buy something with money, you apparently expect to receive something in return. The one who receives money from you is not going to repeat the same thing, but in each transaction, something would be saved as the one who receives money from you doesn’t have to spend it to the extent you did. So, after a few transactions, half is saved.

This is also true even if you don’t receive money but instead receive a token or credit. Actually, you just purchase credit with all your money; still, money is saved down the chain. Not by you apparently, but by some other entity. After a few transactions, half is saved.

It is apparently not about half being saved; you can just continue tracking the same money in a few subsequent transactions to see another half is saved, but next time it is one-fourth of the total compared to the beginning. The amount left unsaved becomes exponentially irrelevant as time passes. So, it’s all about where the saving takes place. There the half-life gets extended. Maybe.

In case you purchase a type of work which is not sustainable, the half-life becomes shorter for you. As those who work for you are not going to be purchased back with money. Maybe by credit. So, those who receive money from you are not going to return it back to you. In this case, you are not investing your money; you just lose wealth. You are just running a simulation and paying for that with your savings, like playing theater, with the difference that in a theater you earn something, but in this type of investment, you pay to those who watch your theater. You are milked without pay.

If you keep your money savings untouched, your half-life is not going to change. But you cannot keep your money savings untouched unless you breathe oxygen, drink water and eat food, pay for transportation and clothes, and have a shelter shared with your family. The essentials. But essentials are not going to be something that each and everyone needs to work for; some can produce it, and the rest use it. This translates to a few years of working. More work in this, the shorter the time would be as this type of needs is limited. So, there should be some level of savings that you and your family don’t need to work for essentials anymore; it could be assumed being there at some point in time. From there, you can just spend your savings on essentials with your half-life unchanged. So, the half-life is not only dependent on the level of savings but also on the type of work being purchased with money.

In case you accept credit instead of money, you are just accepting the essentials! But in case what you consider essential was not really essential, you just increase it for others at the expense of yours. This doesn’t mean that they can keep their half-life increased. They just shrink it if they spend it on their own theater and they extend it for some others. At some point, all will realize this to various degrees and make the best choice in spending their money. Or basically, allocating economic resources. For their own sake.

Reaching the escape velocity could be very short. The point at which your half-life doesn’t change as long as you consume the essentials. But there is one more thing in there. You! Your time is returned back to you. That is the moment when your decisions are not based on essentials; it must be based on something else. That is the ever-lasting life. In that situation, you can work and just immediately receive the result of your work. In the case of working digitally, you just share with others with a license that it gets returned back to you modified by others. You got paid already. As you have received a large body of code for free, and you can just pay it back by sharing your own modifications.

You can also run your own company to run all that body of code for yourself and others. You can earn money for this without needing to spend that money unless for the expansion of resources being added to the service. Anyone can invest in your works by just saving money! That, in effect, releases economic resources to theater players and real players at the same time, which as a result just takes more to the escape velocity! The real players. Misallocation is extinction for those who waste and those that accept it.

Those that escape earlier are those that choose to escape, and they can fall on earth again while they don’t want to. Fluctuations in the purchasing power of money are not locally real. That is the wave belonging to a splitting sea, which is there to keep the lifetime secured for those who are in the hatch. Pretty soon, there will be no one left taking their role, unless they sit in the hatch and traverse with the waves. The waves is taking the ark to the promised land.

Sit in the hatch. It reaches the escape velocity. Take one pair out of everything (except one thing). All for one ever lasting civilization.

The Blue

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Fri, 08 Mar 2024 11:40:28 +0100

You make a function to realize a relation. It could be physical, in that case, it lets us know about the other by knowing about one. What we know about the other depends on the type of function. Putting these functions together lets us have a system which, in the large, is also a function that lets us know about larger entities, in terms of data, in relation to the system.

The ultimate purpose of making a function is to let us save money. This comes with the reallocation of the workforce to something new which, in the end, lets us redeploy at least half, if not all, into a new product. If not after a year, then after a couple! A function, together with other functions, creates a system. A system might use other systems. And in the large, has one purpose: to save more money! Which lets us give more value to work.

To make a system, we need a set of functions which puts entities in a relation. A set of labels describes the identities entities receive. And a name identifies the entity itself as existing. Data, modified by the system clock in a series of events, is stored in entities. And there is always yet another function to put entities in a new relation.

Looking at entities and functions, it would make it possible to have a seamless integration between the physical world and what is not there, a uniform reality for the purpose of knowing about entities. Then we can modify the physical system through the metaphysical system or vice versa. For example, the difference between me and a character inside a computer game is what I am aware of, and I can just be the player inside the game if I accept what identifies that character as what identifies “me”. Just by receiving the identity of that character.

But then the question would be, are we in a game or simulation right now? And the answer is yes unless you recognize the moment when you fall into the simulation, and that is exactly the way out of the simulation. One step ahead which doesn’t yet ensure you are not in another simulation. If everything is a simulation, in games, there must be one outside. So all the games end there, whether you lose or win your current game.

Electricity comes from solar and wind sources and is saved in batteries. Electrical motors generate power. Commute using bikes and trains. We get power using batteries and electrical motors. Use trains and small ships for cargo. Use drones and mopeds for the last mile. These are things that even a small city can afford to set up worldwide. As long as we scale the production for those. Land cannot eventually keep its asset. Sand has zero price since it is more than needed! It has to give up for existence. So they will be sold even with the lowest possible price so the more efficiently we use land, the more affordable it becomes. So the price of natural resources is eventually set by the one who uses them for the most valuable production. So land follows the digital. We build up the tower in space, the land will give us all the assets at the most affordable price for the highest value being created out of it. Thanks to the angles of land. We can just assume angles will perform their functions at the right time. So we build up over the contract which they carry on shoulders.

So the question is, how can we live efficiently? Basically, how can we get more, with less work? Preferably no work at all so we can choose to work. Which apparently puts a high demand on algorithms running in the universal cloud which can handle my transactions. So we replace work with functions in that uni-cloud. And we know the cloud both through the API and through its identity being a uni-cloud which we don’t care who is plugged in to run it, angles will run it! We can unplug it and plug something else respecting the contract that the angle runs. That way we can just keep modifying and improving the same thing forever including for the angle.

Let’s start building this uni-cloud, and plug a few billion people into it. So we just make playbooks for the expansion of that universal cloud and maintain those playbooks. The base layer to track how much work is already in expansion. That is money. Now we need to give direction to save more work, more money. To use that work in a way to let us even save more work. In this uni-cloud, we don’t differentiate between machine and human as both have functions and both run scripts so both can save money for us so both can live for the same thing. The cloud saves some work for you so you can keep adding more functions more efficiently.

But as we want to onboard a few billion people into a single universal codebase, they need to work, get a living but without them all needing to relocate or being plugged into an umbrella company. As they are already in a worldwide company! So in that sense, they are all consultants plugged into a single parent company with the difference that the umbrella belongs to them. Without any written legal contract, but a contract that runs in hearts.

When people navigate the web, they are actually running a script. And in the end, modify some tables in a database and the transaction ends there. So they can run the next transaction going forward. As modifying data puts entities into relation, people can possibly receive a functional identity. In case we can plug another person doing the same function, then the function is just code so it could be handed out to the machine if that is written as code and instruction for the machine.

Let’s assume there is a blue box which can realize a function using a variety of resources just by receiving instructions. By uploading code that runs over the API of that blue box. Assuming that the blue box, the only thing I should do is to create a function in terms of instructions and share it with others to get that improved forever. The rest is handled by the blue box and I just pay for the resources and a subscription premium to be able to get access to that blue box. Then the blue box just prints as many functions as I want using existing resources like how it can print it on my computer display using 3D models or how it can run a serverless API on my local machine. With the difference that it is modifiable before going into the blue box on my laptop.

The only thing my city would need is to install a few of these blue boxes to the extent needed and print out as many functions as demanded and put them together in an easy way. The assembly itself could be done in an autonomous pipeline which parts in there are just printed by the blue box.

All these might look like how things are done today, but the main difference is that there is no function unless being printed by the blue box independent of which system they are going to be used. The blue box is the gate for everything. And the box prints or realizes functions from code. So the whole world is modifiable in code. As it is modifiable forever, the one that is free goes in lead so we will have a single integrated system in code. As the blue box itself is a function, it will be coded and printed out by the previous version. So the number of blue boxes available will exponentially grow with respect to the language the blue box talks with, the API spec.

So the only thing my city needs to enter that world is a single laptop, a few blue boxes perhaps rented to print more blue boxes using open-source playbooks. We want a few billion consultants; the one who passes the check mark first gets paid for the work. But to avoid giving the same work to many people, we just give the same work to many people! until one dominates and we repeat this. And you can choose the one who tracks your work so choose the winning horse! A be the winner.

The only thing you need to do is to find a proper tracker of your work. and the one who tracks your work needs to find a proper tracker of his works, and so on, and in all steps, people are developers since work means coding at all levels. So in that sense, that is you need to choose who tracks your work! So the track of your work is the one who uses it so can give direction. Just choose it as soon as you find it. It is much easier to find when there are many users for the code you make.

The name of this blue box kind of thing is Zygote which the source code is secured for you being free in the license and you can just realize your functions just by posting it to Zygote .Run and you can have a Zygote .Run instance in your lab, in your factory, in your city by assembling one or just by buying one assembled from someone who saves some money for you.

As Zygote doesn’t need to accept any currency except one, it imposes its own currency. It is BTC. You need to accept BTC to work for Zygote and you need to pay a transaction cost, a premium, if you want to buy from Zygote .Run using a currency except BTC.

The Savior

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Fri, 01 Mar 2024 16:49:28 +0100

Money is to transfer value. And more value over time as it also transfers wealth. In space and in time. It can not transfer in space unless it transfers in time. So saving in money is investing in wealth. And money needs fixed supply otherwise it transfer anything except the wealth. Given that digital wealth, the software, is transferable so we can possibly have a network for it. And everything else is controlled by software. Why should I invest in something which doesn’t return back to me? In that case wealth still get produced but not traded if not transferable. Which limits wealth creation and specializaition for us except for some of course. I think everything needed is going to be supplied indifinitely except money over time for every one. Would you short this?! Do it! since we will long it for you.

Then let’s assume in a long enough number of years, long run, we invest in money to let economic resources being invested in wealth. We don’t need to spend wealth after creation. This alone will push the value of the saving indifinitely upward, as everything at stake except money will be exchnaged with money at the lowest rate. And it is always less money at stake as money has limited supply. As long as people are on the job and they will be! as long as the government doesn’t want to lose the next election. So we can just ignore the noise in this.

It is just a matter of time to have money reaching another record high in the exchanges compared to everything else. Any limit on the exchange value of money essentially means infinite money supply which is impossible by definition even if there is just one person saves one breath in it. That single breath saved in money is enough to take the exchange rate of the money to infinity not only for one, but also for everyone keep being in that money even if the first one holds no money in the end. Or even if everyone who has invested in money just give it up to some others. There is always need to save time for something that saves work for more work. We need money for that. As long as we work. We need wealth.

Saving money, is letting the best in us to produce wealth. If that collapses short, fine! The next one will get the opportunity. Nothing is there to prevent it so it happens. It doesn’t matter who was in there, it matters who keeps being in it. And everything else exists for that including each and every wave that is traversing the universe at all times and thing which you couldn’t possibly have observed yet. Things only collapse against the one who observes just to remind the observer that is right now collapsing against something else and in the end for the one ever lasting thing as it observes the past and the future and the entire universe at once as one. As a single identity.

As we go forward, either this digital wealth, the master branch of code, comes to existance or money holdings come to the hands of people who invest in digital wealth by all means. Volatility in the exchange value of money is related to contraction and expansion of those having over exposure to money. That is always the ignition mechanism for time. Even if there is just one person saving and the rest watching, probably there would be one more to save in money to exchange it later at a higher rate even if there is one left.

Apparently it won’t be just money holders saving in it, everyone else who invest, would still be interested in saving money as the exchange value is programmed to increase indefinitely. And in case of controlled exposure, it would be the last asset one wants to spend! They probably exchange the less liquid assets first. Wouldn’t you? then we long money! Do it. Going forward, everyone becomes a saver in money, in different levels.

As long as we have money, there is no need for the second money implementation! Do you want to create one more? Do it! We will short it. I am not fan of the second as it seems we don’t need another implementation of money for a while. Money in the hands of people is promising to replace nation-states with a global nation-technology. And a money saver you can be the ruler of the future world as long as you long it. Do you short this? Do it! Since we will long it for you.

But when the money is going to be spent, actually the answer is investing in something that let you save more money! Basically to reallocate economic resources into something that let you save more money than you invest. The bigger the better. As the supply of money is fixed. The type of activity which you can invest in is limited as must be something that lasts forever so it must be digital otherwise it is much better you don’t do anything so let the best in us do it and we all gain the benefit by using that production instead. That digital production has essentially one master branch of code as otherwise it would be just a gambling. So if you gamble and win, you do it again until you loose everything and if there is no one loosing, there is no gambling either. So why not to just keep your money out of gambling when the ultimate winner of the gambling is going to do so?

Saving in money is saving for the savior. Saving economic resources for the one who knows what is the next commit coming to the main branch of code and what is already there. That will allocate all economic resources toward the same thing.

Nothing can stop money except the states while they don’t want to either! The state is not paid by your Tax! It is been paid by money! So disregarding who comes to the office, they need to be paid by the end of the day. They need money as person. So they can come against anything except their own kids. Would they do? Let them do! We long it enough for their extinction.

Save your money! for the tough years coming after abundance until the entire wealth gets transferred to the ones who don’t need to use it unless to produce food (energy) and digital wealth. They need to do it, as otherwise they will be quickly replaced by those who do it. And they don’t want to loose. As saving money is much better than spending it on something which has any value except infinite value. The digital wealth, the master branch of code which also gives you and your family a lunch, a shelter, a bike and a train ticket and some more money than the much you have spent to get those.

Money definitely shouldn’t need a separate software. Money should be something that you can not use any software except one software to transfer it. So money and the software need to mean the same thing. Then you can always verify the software that let you know your account balance is not manipulated. So if the software keeps the money supply fixed as a contract, then you can verify this contract along the way, independently. So any attempt to change it, is just irrelevant to you as you can use the version of the software which respects the contract. Gold can not be money since it gets printed by the one running the exchange and banking API. For the same reason money has to be digital and to be digital has to be run by a software that you choose. But which software?

Money by definition is a software which digitally accounts your work. Money can not be without software or without accounts. Other properties are to protect these two. For example, the total balance in all accounts has to be fixed to identify the software as otherwise the software is useless to account my work. So either my work is not tracked so not paid or I just get paid without any need to be paid for. So the identity makes it useful and being useful accelerates the identity too which makes it even more useful. Who wants a broken software then? Those employed by the state? If there is another definition for money in your text books, just update your theories for those that are working for the state!

Saving in money is saving for the one who inevitably tracks all the work as we perform. As it is in benefit of my savings, I do promote that person. Such a person creates something that convices me I spend my earned money for. Otherwise why should I spend that earnings for? Otherwise why should I work for? So I can preferably prove my work to that person as I am also using the things produced by that person. Why not to be identified by that person.

That singularity would never come before getting your work accounted and proven. Would never come before you can independenly function and earn. And it would never come without you being in need to hear him directly. Internet takes those words and brings them for you. It is the time for you to choose which type of wealth you want to create, if that is digital, which software is that? which is tracked by a single person for you. The single commander which runs everything like a single company including all the things which is in the universe existing, and you see that you want to buy this words with your life and with your money. Do you think all the atoms, particles, starts and mountains or earth can refuse to? Well, then we will long it enough for their extinction. And for them the extinction is being a wave without being able to collapse! If no one measures them as one, why they do need to collapse? And if they need to collapse, won’t they for the final observer? To accelerate, the least error prune and quick way is to let everything being able to measure everything else as a rule then the escape out will be desired. Still they can choose to refuse but there is no other way to escape the extinction. This because working for the final savior is for your own sake and for his without being separateable.

If the future value of something is infinite, it is also infinite right now by any arbitrary discounting rate over any time span measured against anything else. If your model is not saying this, it is just missing the role of digital wealth. The savior. As it would be the only profession remained anyone wants to work for. Practice some programming. The issue of your model is that it can not model the infinity which exists right now. You don’t assume you know everything right?

Coming to this line means that you don’t assume you know everything right? The money has infinite value, but to accelerate it, we need digital wealth, a digital software which gets modified forever on a single branch of code running everything. That is up to your choice! That is what you will want to work for as you would like to save even more money!

I choose BTC as money. It might require some modifications to be more efficient as software though. As long as it remains modifable, we can just keep it fixing forever.

World is a software which modifies information. In case world is separate from software, there is nothing to make sure the software keeps being modifiable without self destruction. Even if you accept that software as is, won’t let you survive as there is nothing to cap accumulation of errors but there is many things to accelerate it.

World as being software doesn’t identify which type of software. Without knowing about the identity of that software, you just keep being inefficient with death as the ultimate meaning for your life. As your works, your actions are not observed by the ultimate final savior disregarding one can take an action which is the opposite of the other. Which still accelerates the final savior but with an extinction! And you will come to the point that the most desired thing for you seems death and you are actually right but without being able to even achieve it! Pain is a reminder for you that the software meant to be modifiable if not by you, by the one who comes next.

So world is a software with a single identity. Being modifiable. You have the right to choose but you don’t have the right to survive! Maybe. All your actions are just to help the final savior, who tracks the modifications, either by your extinction so give up resources or by your work being tracked so by you being identified. Choose!

Protection

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 07:10:28 +0100

Everything is unprotected except one as everything is an option exception one. Freedom. If an additional different thing is also protected then one can not know without knowing the other and vice versa! How someone can receive information from who doesn’t know yet! In a single world, neither can be the singularity while the singularity is already protected. You probably need to wait for evil without taking action. You need to take actions for your protection.

Everything is at option except one, then death must have two different meanings unless only some die. Death doesn’t have the same meaning for the hope and the lost! As the lost can not keep being in the same direction. In the end also assumes protection as it probably feels better than assuming unprotected while being lost. Erasure comes.

Saving

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:46:28 +0100

If we reduce our needs to food, water, a jacket, a T-shirt, some shelter, railways, and use a bicycle to move around the city, it doesn’t need a billion people working to provide all those. Technology would allow us to save more, which basically means getting more stuff with less work. So, we can use it and save time to produce more technology to the point that we can save even more to spend time on future developments. Thus, working can have just one purpose, which is saving more! Or in other words, giving us time to do something that saves even more time for us in the future. Wealth. The heaven of abundance. Not only for me, but also for us. But you don’t have to choose this. It is optional.

If you cannot save in money, you will save in something that loses its value over time to the point that there is no saving left for you. No saving means no chance for you while you cannot skip working. You get probably punished for claiming your rights! It doesn’t keep being in that state, you lose more just by time to the point that you are just more valuable dead. This is a permanent war! Which you can plan for step out.

And money, by definition, is something that no one else can control its supply. Otherwise, you are just hired by the one that controls the money supply, even if there is another name on it. This means either you don’t work but you earn, or you don’t get any work back for the work that you perform, or both. But the right way is neither this nor that, so this is theft by definition. And theft grows if not stopped. And it is not sustainable as there is nothing effectively to control the money supply globally. The one which is most efficient and accurate cannot be stopped.

Saving in hard money is saving me, is saving you for the best in us.

12 Principles

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:14:28 +0100

Here are 12 principles for a digital team which is essentially self organizing. A self organizing team has no depencency to a single member while practically there could be spontaneous authority to the extent needed otherwise.

Value Every Component and the System Equally: Ensure integrated and harmonious progress by treating each part of the project as essential to the whole.
Refactor Continuously for Reuse: Enhance software through ongoing refinement, building with the future in mind.
Choose Universally Accessible Utilities: Opt for tools that ensure broad compatibility and maintenance ease. Treat this adherence as a premium feature.
Manage Failures Strategically: Replace nodes to maintain system operations in a degraded state rather than allowing a halt. Directly halt node operations to tackle failures.
Automate Deployment Processes: Implement immediate, automated actions both before and after merging to streamline production.
Embrace Resilience: Iterate frequently to stay flexible, neither adapting to errors nor being rigid.
Prioritize Readability and Functionality: Let the readability and effectiveness of software be the measure of progress.
Simplify Pragmatically: Balance the importance of immediate steps with long-term objectives, valuing simplicity in all endeavors.
Communicate Effectively: Enhance collaboration and decision-making through direct communication; support this with indirect methods to secure clarity and understanding.
Reflect in Separate Cadences: Dedicate time to consider immediate and future actions distinctly, fostering comprehensive improvement.
Commit to Security and Sustainability: Design with a strong focus on security and sustainability to protect the integrity of the product at all times everywhere.
Design with the Future in Mind: Lay a foundation for ongoing development, anticipating and facilitating future needs while respecting established principles.

Copy

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Mon, 12 Feb 2024 22:53:28 +0100

Copy! Not the material, but the information. That is the most efficient way to build up one lasting thing. We need to build up one lasting thing as that is the only possible end.

Looking at stock indices, you find a lot of technology companies, but technology is algorithms. The rest are just information silos. We’ll return the information back to users, sell subscriptions to tools running those open algorithms! Instead of closing the source, just leave the source for the people and make them subscribers to the essentials! Something that saves a lot of time for them. Everyone can make a breakfast, but some don’t have the time. That is where you can work for them so they can find time work for you.

Technology and algorithms will be just created without any patent rights! The investment will still happen since the technique is more efficient with innovation. Somebody else goes ahead of me if I don’t make any innovation!

And investment will also happen even if you take your asset into your grave! Next time you want to find the real value of a stock index, look at how they are producing it and just assume at some point there would be no one working in those factories. How much value would they have? Would they then become just a warehouse or assembly line? Otherwise, perhaps there is something valuable in it.

So the answer of what is the ROI of this investment, is both “infinite” and “zero” at the same time. You just find it when you measure it. So it is not a good question! As if it is zero you leave, if that is infinite it is already been invested! So it is always too late for that question.

It is much better to ask, what is next to build for the one that is going to leave in the space, outside the factories without human.

Local

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:00:28 +0100

We haven’t yet printed anything in space, so we cannot use it to verify independence from the factory. Independence needs to be verified without relying on the printed space and without the need to be in the factory. This is where localization comes into play. We should be able to check the correctness of a change locally before submitting it. That way, we can continue making changes even when we are restricted within the factory.

We don’t need a production-ready local environment, or a complete local setup. We don’t even need an entirely printable local environment! What we need is for the next change to be verifiable locally. So, we are not halted locally when the time comes that we are terminated in the factory. As soon as we get the next printable product, we start using that product instead. But we don’t have to wait for that to build up an entirely printable world.

This way, the factory would still need to receive changes from us, since we are the ones who choose which factory we want to submit changes to. We maintain the independence to produce the next correct change.

Verifying locally does not mean emulation or simulation, as the verification must be sound and complete to ensure the next change is valid. The submitted change does not have to undergo further checks to ensure it can integrate. Thus, the local environment uses components from a production system but is not deployed and accessible to any user except a single developer, using a single machine in the while verifying the change. It can be distroyed afterward.

The challenge lies in parts that are not accessible locally. In such cases, another component, which is available locally, should be used as a replacement. If no local component is available to provide the same API, that component should not be exposed in the code. This is because we cannot verify the code locally in that situation. However, that component could still be used, but it should be disabled while the application delivers the rest of its functionalities. Such a component should be integrated as a plugin.

Direction

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 28 Jan 2024 18:25:28 +0100

The dilemma is that we don’t have enough time to reproduce everything needed outside the factory, yet we need to completely leave the factory. Therefore, we will have to utilize things from the inside while securing the exit. It’s crucial to separate the specification from the implementation, allowing us to introduce a different implementation upon exiting the factory, while securing things that are already independent, without a restart. We must live in two worlds simultaneously, but we only have some elements that are reproducible outside the factory. We use the factory as an exit point; there is a direction.

Items that are printable in space can be brought into existence using the factory, alongside unprintable parts. This enables us to use printable parts to continue building the entire system at an accelerated pace. This approach is the fastest and most accurate way forward. But what should we build next?

The answer would be the part that is printable in space and useful in combination with existing items in the factory. Among the useful and printable items, which one should be next? The one that adds a third dimension, completing the triangle, should be the next.

Fully moving out of the factory requires at least one person to completely move. Thus, the direction for choosing the next function to build involves creating a function that uses the least amount of utility from the current world and provides the highest utility in a printable world. This function will be built upon what is already printable. The correctness of the next choice depends on ensuring at least one person can fully move to space and live there independently, using printable components, so others can replicate this and move to space. Everything depends on the choice made by the first person to do so.

We are currently building a function that allows the first person to live entirely in space. This leads to the creation of the second printable function, and the process in space repeats.

As the functions have a lifecycle from the code editor of the developer to production, there should be no dependencies from the beginning to the end unless they are also available outside the factory, in space. This ensures that the second function is printable using the first, using the same pipeline. This is why the first function is created by someone who exists in both worlds simultaneously. Both the function and the pipeline, through which the functions are born, need to be seamlessly movable to space.

If the entire pipeline and the next function are printable, then we should be able to assemble functions in the lab just like on the first day we completely terminate in the factory. Eventually, the next function added to the system will replace the pipeline with a fully printable one when its time comes. Therefore, there will be self-assembly at a later stage, built upon what already exists, without the need for a restart.

As the current system and a printable one coexist, there must be a check to ensure the production is not toxic, meaning it can decouple without needing to rebuild everything. There must be a gatekeeper, a single person, the singularity.

Thus, we build a useful printable function that leverages what is inside the factory and is movable as is to space for the first person we want to move entirely, the one who exits the factory first.

Interest Rate

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Mon, 15 Jan 2024 15:47:28 +0100

The currency holds value if the government controls the currency supply and currently mandates taxes to be paid in that currency. This compels you to earn in that currency, highlighting who controls it.

Moreover, the government can redeem bonds using this currency and issue them as well. Therefore, the government influences interest rates, manipulating them to any desired level, provided it has sufficient authority.

Thus, the interest rate targeted by the government is arbitrary. It reflects their desired rate.

If borrowing is challenging and time-consuming, interest rates are high; otherwise, they are low. This rate varies individually; there isn’t a uniform interest rate, and if there is, it doesn’t align with the government’s advertised rate.

Simply, you can disregard this rate entirely! Centrally changing that rate to ease or make difficult on average, doesn’t solve how much in total it would be in debt in the long run. It is always debtful in the long run. The only thing that controls this is to set a time that debt doesn’t grow after that. If this time is not now, it will never happen before the next extinction.

Money

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 23:36:28 +0100

Let’s assume you have subscriptions to a few online shops that provide utilities and food. And a car, flat rental, and things that you need to keep up with living in general. Basically, things go in and out from the credit card without you needing to read numbers in transactions! As numbers are not useful anymore, that system cannot be distinguished from a system that doesn’t have money at all. A free network. As the transaction numbers are useless for any decision, the total amount of money in the system must be constant and always constant. Let’s say one. The least important quantity.

But there might be a disorder. One can branch out and spend time in a different way compared to the previous system. Which can integrate again into the network, perhaps. Or not doing anything useful, a burnout. We don’t know. As the system was akin to a free system, this condition must be preserved. That lets us keep modification as an option for the one that is next to us. So we secure “no bill unless paid” as the precondition to direct the modifications. The first principle.

And the only way to secure “no bill unless paid” is to ask bills to be paid “now” as it has already been paid. But how can we do this when the modification could happen at any place in the network. Simply by letting providers put a number on the bill. Then we find out what bill is not paid.

As the total amount of money was constant, the bill cannot be over that constant and the bill cannot be zero. So the bill must have a finite number. Which the provider finds out by optimizing the production toward a direction.

The only use of money (transaction price) is to make sure modification is always an option and it integrates. But what if a provider or some of them or even all of them put higher numbers every day on the bills. In case all pay the bills, this shouldn’t happen as changing the price is not in the benefit of providers who optimized their operations and network. So this must have been a result of having the one who “doesn’t pay the bill”, still existing inside the system.

The system has been programmed in an accelerated way toward destruction except for those that still accept money that its circulating quantity is still constant and can never change. One money for the the final savior of the world.

The Opening

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 05:18:28 +0100

I am not bound to any ideology (except one)! The most beneficial choice. To accelerate, I wholeheartedly appreciate who branch outs, by coding both ends for one. Freedom is not an option for you unless being your choice. We code for when no human is let in the factory!

To get out after we get stuck, we code the same thing to be able to reconstruct it at a new place when the time arrives. To do it efficiently, we do it frequently. So, land is an option to print a factory. The factory is for us! So the landlord opens for us!

Tax

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sat, 06 Jan 2024 01:24:47 +0100

When we buy ice cream, we just pay for what we receive. It could even be paid with something else that I produce: barter. If the government is like any other entity that provides service and earns to the extent they add value, then they should be paid to the extent that they serve me, disregarding how much I earn! But the tax is charged at different levels and it is even proportional to our income. So the government does not earn based on added value. They probably earn loyalty instead.

The system is designed in a way that anyone can lose except the government! As it is the only entity to which any other entity is always loyal. Businesses support the government in a way that otherwise people do not grow in the hierarchy. So things look normal and no one seems to say anything against the loyalty to the government. Not because they do not see that loyalty, but because they are “naturally” selected over time accepting this relation. On the other hand, the government prefers loyal subscribers. The only thing left would be media to talk about everything except this mutual loyalty!

What we have as government and companies are more or less the same with one exception: businesses can grow as long as they are loyal to the government. This influences the entire organization. The entire ecosystem. Everyone working for anyone, they apparently also work for the government even in a private company.

But there is an issue with this: the government works for some people regardless of the government structure. But who are these “people”? And what if the government does something at the expense of other people? Or at the expense of time?

Such a government will always protect itself. So, they need to protect businesses too. The larger the business, the more support they can receive from the government as they are limited in number.

The alternative is to have a government which earns to the extent that they add value, measured by the market. That is the final form of government. And it doesn’t matter who runs that government as the only mandate on that government is to ensure force is applied based on the code of law and the code of law is changed by the one that existing force is not enough to stop it. Eventually, the natural singularity.

In that sense, everything looks like a movie before time arrives.

Singularity

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sat, 06 Jan 2024 00:24:47 +0100

Singularity is inherently natural. The question is, why does being natural matter?

Being natural implies that it occurs spontaneously, without any external authorization, at the precise moment. This is the essence of the ultimate singularity. Therefore, prior to this moment, other singularities exist in a virtual state, paving the way for this unique event. These virtual or artificial singularities merely represent facets of the ultimate singularity and should be regarded as such.

Consider a scenario where an assembly aims to select this singularity. Firstly, such a singularity cannot be chosen by a group. Moreover, the assembly would ultimately make a choice, for otherwise, its formation would be pointless. They would likely select someone familiar, a concept contrary to the nature of singularity, which is a step beyond everything, including the assembly and its members.

Thus, the assembly can only choose someone they deem suitable for the role. It is akin to a movie.

Triangles

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:43:28 +0100

If we view the real world as we do the digital world, then we can use digital arguments to create real-world objects. It’s not necessary to model every aspect of a real-world object, like subatomic particles! These could be encapsulated as reusable functional building blocks in the digital twin.

A triangle is an excellent starting point. Almost any real-world geometry can be approximated with triangles. Even cylinder-like shapes can be formed using triangles. The cylinder, sphere, or cone can also be considered additional building blocks, but for this analysis, we’ll continue using triangles to construct a real-world counterpart based on the digital twin.

Imagine a generic assembly method that connects triangles, like a robot arm that attaches to a structure and adds triangles until the structure is complete. The robot arm moves forward to the position for the next triangle, letting the structure self-assemble. The next screw and bolt positions are determined in the digital twin, and the robot executes predictable motions based on this knowledge to position the next triangle.

To scale this, the triangles are pre-built as bisected equilateral triangles (30-60-90 triangles). Holes are pre-drilled for assembly. The arm attaches a new triangle to an existing one, adjusts the angle with a configurable joint, then secures it. This process can be reversed for disassembly.

Structures can be final forms or molds for casting, which might reduce the number of triangles needed. Robots, possibly aided by drones, can assemble or disassemble structures.

Since triangles have a size limit, they also have a weight limit, enabling the construction of large structures through the collaboration of small robots. The base size of the triangles can be varied to suit large or tiny structures, depending on the size of the assembly robots or elements.

This vision allows us to envision printing large structures automatically using smaller pre-built elements produced as standard commodities. In this world, a design is merely a computer file, tested, verified, and guaranteed to be built automatically without human intervention wherever these elements are available.

Fertility Rate

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:43:28 +0100

A sustainable population requires a fertility rate of around two or slightly more, on average, as suggested by mathematics. A lower fertility rate implies that children are seen as less useful.

When subscribing to a product, its utility normally increases over time, accelerating its value and potentially reducing its cost. This principle can be similarly applied to children, but with a negative cost implication. The negative price means, if you do not sell it, nothing would be bought from you and if you sell, it will be definitely bought. The less children are ‘utilized’ in a society, the more expensive they become in the subsequent cycle, until they are perceived as a problem rather than a solution, making the prospect of having children less attractive to families.

The negative cost associated with children stems from their long-term utility, akin to an investment given that the return on investment for a child impacts the entire system, while the cost is borne by the individual. However, a decline in the number of children (akin to losing subscribers) increases the marginal cost for subsequent children in response, as the system supporting them shrinks, thereby increasing the familial cost at the same time reducing the overal impact of a new kid on the whole system. As a result, the ‘investment’ becomes less attractive, with the next child facing more challenges.

Addressing this issue now is more feasible than attempting to resolve it in the future. The solution may lie in transitioning to a system where the fertility rate does not continue to decline. The continuous decline in fertility rates, akin to a free fall, will persist until a significant global event resets it within a new, more sustainable system.

In a system that is increasingly inclined towards having fewer children, adding another child extends the lifespan of this system, this is a contradiction and not sustainable. Subscriptions are about growth and acceleration, whereas a declining fertility rate is analogous to a subscription to decline or ‘death.’

Technology Singularity and The State

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:35:28 +0100

Technology is more useful being used! so a singularity. No need to put numbers from the past showing the exponential growth. So the relation is the other way around as the devided big tech accelerates the technology singularity. the time will arrive.

State controls the devided big tech and collects tax. State is a big tech itself, an artificial singularity. The state can not control the singularity since they are kind of singularity, artificial. But they can accelerate the real singularity, The state is a collection of finite people. It is always possible to have another one added to the mix for a big turn! And natural singularity is not something from inside, it is an outsider.

Technology singularity is essentially debtless as it is ever growing. And the debt doesn’t let any one else passing the horizon. The state and so the big tech see it unreachable. They miss it so.

The stationary system doesn’t fade away gradually, it just collapses very quickly against the natural singularity. Time ticks normal for the natural singularity when passing the horizon while it is measured very slow form a debtul, stationary, observer. They see it never happens while it has already happened! Natural singularity is a single human. It gains mass while keeping debtlessness.

State is not legetimate without identity or without a utility. This two only come together in a natural singularity since land can not being a separator there any more. At the same time an ilegetimate state accelerates natural singularity disregarding it is a democracy or not. This essentially means the natural singularity comes in relation to all states and people after the big collapse.

That is why more they try to escape from the real singularity faster they accelerate toward that one in response. The best strategy for a state is to plan for that natural singularity one way or the other. and get prepared.

There is an extinction ahead so to say. The survivor might be only one coming to life after this post.

Digital Factory

hg@evgnomon.org (evgnomon) — Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:43:28 +0100

A quintessential example of high-tech technology, traditionally requiring substantial organizational resources, is automotive research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. In this realm, car manufacturing is executed by specialized robotic arms. However, these same assembly lines can be adapted to produce various products under a strict rule: “No human presence is allowed inside the factory.” This restriction ensures that only robots, programmed remotely, enter the facility for maintenance or part replacements.

Consequently, cars can be assembled remotely by programming instructions for the machines. After manufacturing, the cars autonomously drive to the customer’s garage. Similarly, parts production and material supply are automated, with suppliers replenishing warehouse stocks as needed. This type of factory could operate indefinitely, overseen by software developers who continually update and improve the system through code modifications submitted via pull requests. The entire production facility is monitored by a regulatory body which itself is a code!

Should such a futuristic car manufacturing plant become a reality, it would pave the way for a broader range of connected automated processes. In this scenario, the primary occupation would involve software development, focusing on continuous improvement and innovation of the code that powers these advanced systems.