We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
I remember when the main way to answer that question was to watch the News at Ten. More sophisticated people would read newspapers. The limitations of mainstream media are ever more apparent. The internet democratized information, so that should help. There are still various problems, including filtering and resources.
YouTube is probably the most successful solution to the latter problem. It is possible to be a full time YouTuber focusing on a niche topic and earn a living.
The former problem is hard. Search engines have bias; bots abound. I offer here a handful of ways I figure out what is happening.
To answer specifically what is happening, lately I have found the Miltary and History channel useful. In the linked video he explains what is known about the results of the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, complete with satellite imagery. He has daily updates with information about multiple conflicts with lots of detail. He is analytical and unpolitical.
To answer why it is happening, William Spaniel’s channel looks at events from the perspective of crisis bargaining theory: it is war economics where territory is the currency, hence the refrain that everything is about “lines on maps”. In the linked video he explains why the USA bombed Iranian nuclear facilities when it did, in terms of Israel setting the stage and creating a window of opportunity. More generally, the channel is useful for understanding why fighting is happening instead of negotiating, and how different things will have to look before negotiation is possible.
For a broader perspective of capabilities and defense economics, there is Perun. He explains the principles, brings in real world data and describes the range of possibilities. An unexpected bit of information in the linked video is that Israel would likely run out of ammunition for its iron dome before Iran runs out of cheap, badly aimed ballistic missiles. That is why eliminating launchers is so important to Israel, and it affects how long an air campaign can go on for.
In general, if I really want to understand something, I have found that finding a good specialist YouTuber is one of the better ways to do it. The feedback loop of financial reward and algorithmic feedback seems to work: not universally, but enough that there is a rich vein of good information on any given topic amongst the noise.
For something lighter, I can also recommend Daniel Owen if you are looking to buy a GPU for your computer, and Chris Spargo for dull yet fascinating pop history like the story of nationalised pubs.
What is happening today, it seems, is that the entire population of the UK is in the midst of realizing that whether a controversial idea may be safely expressed depends, in large part, on the hearer, and not the speaker.
Current law fails the rule-of-law test:
the law hands police and magistrates wide discretionary powers to decide which viewpoints are acceptable, depending on the social or political mood at the time and on the ground.
Legislation can not seem to fix the problem:
Because every legislative fix proposed in recent years has failed to address the root problem: the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. This is the idea that the King-in-Parliament wields unlimited power with no guardrails, and has long been a foundational principle of British constitutional order. The British state does not concede the existence of any legal limits on its own authority. Individual rights have become casualties of rigid adherence to this ancient doctrine, which, plainly, no longer serves the interests of the society it governs.
Byrne goes on to argue that the application of speech laws has changed over time due to fashion. The only real solution to that is absolute free speech like that granted by the US First Amendment.
There is something deeply wrong when a law passed with cross-party consensus and endorsed by Britain’s most trusted charities has made it impossible to run an internet forum for hamster owners.
— Sam Dunitriu, as screenshotted by atlanticesque to point out the wilful obtuseness of an opposing view.
The government wants to boss tech companies around, but it might not get its way any more, because the market is small, tech companies are mobile, and:
…the permanent bureaucracy in the United States which might otherwise have helped the UK apply informal pressure on Americans who dared to disobey its decryption and censorship edicts – none of which, it bears mentioning, are enforceable against an American who refuses them and is happy to avoid setting foot in British territory – is gone.
We should adapt.
If the UK chooses to be the worst place for an AI company, or a social media company, or a digital asset company to incorporate and do business, it will find that it has very few such companies. Regardless of your opinions on how British society should be structured, the NHS, immigration, or the appropriate quantum of social welfare, if you don’t have high tech employers generating revenues and paying taxes, social programs become very difficult to pay for.
Will we get a government capable of making this realisation? Or will we continue to self-destruct?
I can’t afford what is likely tens of thousand to go through all the legal and technical hoops over a prolonged period of time
The author of this article is correct. There’s no way to safely run a web page with user interaction in the UK.
Addendum added by the editorial pantheon:
The official samizdata position to this is… they can go fuck themselves. It is unlikely we are important enough to attract official attention but if we do, samizdata has lawyers plus the actual site is hosted in USA.
So for the avoidance of doubt… the laughably misnamed Online Safety Act will be completely ignored.
We will continue to remove/reject comments we personally find offensive (or just inane/pointless) but under no circumstances will we remove a comment we do not find offensive just because someone else might.
In this episode, we discuss pressing economic and political issues such as the challenges of government debt, inflation, and the often overlooked consequences of central bank policies. With a focus on the impact of taxation and government spending on individual freedoms and economic productivity,. We also discuss the structural inefficiencies in politics and examine the growing disconnect between politicians and economic realities.
Here is an information-dense video with far more than the usual talking points on Ukraine. It is not just about what is going on. It is useful understanding that helps with how to reason about what is going on.
Topics covered include:
Manpower and production;
training on Western weapon systems;
survivability of tanks;
effects of long range weapons;
possible trajectories of the war over the next year or so;
the USA’s self-interest in the war.
It provides good context for the usual talk of things like F16 deployments and map changes.
He says a lot of good things of the sort that have been said on this blog: socialism causes economic failure and costs lives; the individual is more important than the state; it is better if everything not forbidden is permitted than if everything not permitted is forbidden; politicians are not God; fiscal deficit is bad.
I hope that he means it, and that he can do it, and that he is not undermined by the civil service, or by whatever Argentina has in the way of a “deep state”. It would be good to see Argentina getting wealthy again. It would be bad if there are further disasters and they can be conveniently blamed, by those with bad ideas, on these good ideas that Milei is talking about.
The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
