plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
19429 stories
·
21 followers

:emoji: Four Days Of Workweek: Not Just A Dream — It's the Future

2 Shares

There's a fascinating post on the front page of Metafilter about Iceland's experiment with a four day work week. While a lot of people speculated it couldn't and wouldn't work, the results are in and they're eye opening! Two comments in particular illustrate why working less is possible and necessary:

"Americans Can't Imagine Freedom" One commenter lays it bare: many Americans have been conditioned to see work-life imbalance as inevitable. Concepts like universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, and gasp, shorter workweeks seem like sci-fi.

"Productivity" for Whom? Another commenter takes the gloves all the way off: conversations about "productivity" and "efficiency" are often code for "how much money the boss makes."

What's revolutionary about a four-day workweek isn't just the better balance—it's the redistribution of value. When you get the same pay for fewer hours, you're reclaiming time: time to raise kids, build community, pursue hobbies, or simply rest.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
graydon
9 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

50 Venezuelans Imprisoned in El Salvador Came to US Legally, Never Violated Immigration Law | Cato at Liberty Blog

2 Shares
Read the whole story
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
acdha
9 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

The Backlash to the Employee Revolt | Mike the Mad Biologist

1 Comment and 2 Shares

It seems Big Tech is cracking down on its workers. This shouldn’t be surprising since the Trump re-election is, in no small part, backlash to the employee revolt of 2019-2024.

We should view the events of 2019-2024 as a revolt by employees* against managers** and employers***, as all of these events were challenges to managers and employers (not an all-inclusive list):

  1. The Black Lives Matter protests, and how they attempted to alter workplaces.
  2. Modest gains by women in terms of sexual harassment and workplace opportunities.
  3. High profile union victories (even as union membership as a percentage of all workers dropped).
  4. A tighter labor market, giving at least a subset of employees more bargaining power, and thus the ability to tell their employers to ‘take this job and shove it’ (as the song goes).
  5. Increased tolerance towards LGBTQ people, especially in the workplace.
  6. Increased working from home. This undercut the legitimacy of many upper-level managers and bosses, as the employees and the companies they worked for seemed to do fine, if not better. A subset of managers and bosses hated teleworking. That it also made it easier for women and the disabled to compete with them didn’t go unnoticed either.

So there was a lot of anger and perceived loss of status by managers and employers, and I don’t think we can ignore how critical that loss of status was for the ‘red-pilling’ of a lot of influential people. This is why so many of them, even now, view the ‘left’ as bad as the right: for them, it was.

Next time there’s an employee revolt, we need to finish the job.

*I’m using the word employee instead of worker because the left too often fetishizes the word worker with certain kinds of work, when a key element is if the employee has considerable control over how they do their work, as well as the duration and conditions of their work. There are more than a few reasonably well-paid professions where the employee has very little control over key aspects of their work (e.g., much of the healthcare system).

**As is always the case, where people in the middle of a hierarchy fit in the employee/employer dichotomy is difficult to determine. There are people with the title of managers who are essentially employees and vice versa.

***Mind you, the employer doesn’t have to be a CEO; a (very) small business owner can be as much a workplace tyrant as any CEO. Some people like being masters of their demense, regardless of its size…

Read the whole story
acdha
7 days ago
reply
I think this is the key lens through which to view recent events. All of the “Did the left go too far on trans rights?” pieces are incomplete because a large chunk of the pundit class are terrified of being accused of class warfare if they even acknowledge the shift in power away from workers.
Washington, DC
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

The CIA Secretly Ran a Star Wars Fan Site

2 Shares
The CIA Secretly Ran a Star Wars Fan Site

“Like these games you will,” the quote next to a cartoon image of Yoda says on the website starwarsweb.net. Those games include Star Wars Battlefront 2 for Xbox; Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II for Xbox 360, and Star Wars the Clone Wars: Republic Heroes for Nintendo Wii. Next to that, are links to a Star Wars online store with the tagline “So you Wanna be a Jedi?” and an advert for a Lego Star Wars set.

The site looks like an ordinary Star Wars fan website from around 2010. But starwarsweb.net was actually a tool built by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to covertly communicate with its informants in other countries, according to an amateur security researcher. The site was part of a network of CIA sites that were first discovered by Iranian authorities more than ten years ago before leading to a wave of deaths of CIA sources in China in the early 2010s.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
mkalus
2 days ago
reply
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Share this story
Delete

Jewish students not protected by Trump on campus – The Forward

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Read the whole story
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
“Too often, protests in opposition to the war have crossed the line into hateful stereotyping and demonization of Jewish people.

At Columbia, a protest leader stated, “Zionists don’t deserve to live.”

Saying Zionists don’t deserve to live isn’t antisemitic. But conflating Jewish identity and Zionism sure the fuck is.
Epiphyte City
acdha
1 day ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

The Most Powerful Crypto Bro in Washington Has Very Weird Beliefs | The New Republic

2 Shares

Brian Armstrong has become a familiar face—or should we say pate—in the U.S. Capitol. The 41-year-old billionaire CEO of Coinbase, the nation’s largest cryptocurrency exchange by a country mile, has regularly traveled to Washington since at least 2018 to lobby members of Congress for friendly regulations for his industry. He was back on the Hill in June, donning a slim black suit—rather than his usual black T-shirt and black slacks—for a 48-hour bipartisan blitz. And it’s safe to say that he has never been more popular there.

That’s not because senators and representatives are suddenly scooping up bitcoins and meme coins and NFTs in some ill-advised bid to diversify their investment portfolios; just two members of Congress reportedly bought cryptocurrencies in 2022 and 2023. But politicians do see dollar signs when someone like Armstrong rolls into town because Washington is suddenly awash in crypto cash. Almost overnight, the industry has become a dominant force in American politics.

The numbers boggle: A Public Citizen study last month found that crypto companies, which contributed less than $10 million to super PACs over the past two election cycles combined, have raised more than $200 million in 2024—accounting for nearly half of all corporate contributions this cycle. Most of that money has flowed into pro-crypto Fairshake, the largest corporate-backed super PAC in this election cycle (and the second-largest overall, after a pro-Trump PAC); as of Friday, Fairshake had spent $120 million on U.S. House and Senate races this year, according to an analysis by Sludge.

Notably, Armstrong’s Coinbase accounts for nearly a quarter of Fairshake’s coffers, which might explain his baller smirk here:

But don’t be fooled by his bipartisan platitudes; Armstrong is not just another tech CEO making the rounds in Washington, seeking a few regulatory advantages. While pitching crypto as a tool for economic opportunity to the rubes in Congress, he harbors radical ideas about crypto’s true purpose. He believes the United States is in “slow decline” and embraces the Network State, a cultish tech movement that ultimately seeks to end countries as we know them—to decentralize governance in the same way that crypto seeks to decentralize finance.

“I do think crypto has implications far beyond just payments and money,” Armstrong said during a podcast interview in August, when asked about crypto’s relationship to the Network State. He said that he’s “definitely very interested” in special economic zones—in which typically cash-strapped countries cede land to tech bros who want to play a real-life version of SimCity—and other “ways that you can tokenize real estate and actual physical land to create better forms of society.”

“We’re actually losing freedoms,” added Armstrong, who has an estimated net worth of $8.4 billion. “So I would like us to all in crypto think about how we actually go create physical places in the world to preserve freedom over the long term. I think that’s ultimately crypto’s destiny.”

In a chat earlier this month with Balaji Srinivasan (more on him later) at the annual Network State conference in Singapore, Armstrong was even more explicit. “I also believe in exit,” Armstrong said, with “exit” meaning the process by which a person abandons existing nations for network states. “We need to start developing those backup options.”

It’s hard to imagine any other American CEO openly discussing plans to undermine the U.S. government and start their own country. Even more unimaginably, politicians across the spectrum are openly embracing Armstrong and the scammy, crime-fueling, environmentally destructive industry he represents. Indeed, no matter who wins the presidential election this fall, Armstrong will have a friend in the White House.

When it comes to personal investing, cryptocurrencies are casinos at best and Ponzi schemes at worst: The FBI’s latest Cryptocurrency Fraud Report estimates that crypto scammers stole $5.6 billion from Americans in 2023. The most famous crypto scammer of all time, of course, is Sam Bankman-Fried, who alone stole $8 billion from customers of his now-defunct crypto exchange, FTX. Federal authorities say he illegally poured $100 million of those funds into political campaigns before his 2022 arrest. He’s now serving a quarter-century in prison.

But this only scratches the surface of the damage wrought by cryptocurrencies. Chainalysis, a blockchain analysis firm, in February tallied the illicit flow of $24.2 billion in cryptocurrency worldwide in 2023, the majority occurring in sanctioned “entities and jurisdictions.” Translation: Terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pariah nations like North Korea are big fans of crypto. Pyongyang’s crypto scammers have stolen over $3 billion since 2017. “Most experts agree the North Korean government is using these stolen assets to fund its nuclear weapons programs,” Chainalysis told CNBC. Meanwhile in Russia, where crypto is banned, Vladimir Putin has embraced its limited use in an effort to evade international sanctions.

The industry is also a plague on the environment. Cryptocurrencies famously burn through massive amounts of energy, thus driving up greenhouse gas emissions: A 2022 White House report warned that crypto’s use of dirty energy could “hinder the ability of the United States” to meet its Paris Agreement commitments and “to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.” But the industry also devours water, which is used in cooling systems in crypto data centers; a study last year found that a single bitcoin transaction can use enough water to fill a small swimming pool.

Despite this parade of red flags, Congress remains hesitant to crack down—though a few Democratic senators have tried.

“Crypto plays a role at every stage in the illicit fentanyl trade,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, Washington’s most vocal crypto critic, during a hearing in January. “The drug cartels and the traffickers sell their deadly drugs in the darkest marketplaces, and they get paid in crypto.” She’s right. And yet, fierce crypto lobbying has so far scuttled her Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act, which the industry claims will stifle innovation—an argument that succeeded in getting the bill’s top Republican co-sponsor, Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas, to withdraw support.

Pro-crypto legislation has fared better. In May, in a bipartisan 279–136 vote, the House passed the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, which would legitimize crypto while defanging its hated nemesis, the Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler warned that the bill “would create new regulatory gaps and undermine decades of precedent regarding the oversight of investment contracts, putting investors and capital markets at immeasurable risk.”

The legislation faces tougher odds—for now—in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where crypto critic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio helms the Senate Banking Committee. No wonder, then, that crypto PACs have spent $40 million against Brown’s reelection bid. Whether Brown will survive the onslaught is unclear—he leads slightly in polls—but either way, Republicans are projected to win control of the chamber this fall. If they also hold the House and win the presidency, there will be no guardrails left. Crypto will have the run of the Capitol.

Armstrong put it succinctly, and perhaps accurately, during a Bloomberg TV interview earlier this year: “Being anti-crypto is political suicide.”

When it comes to swaying voters, that may or may not be true. Fewer than 17 percent of Americans have ever used crypto, according to polling by the Pew Research Center, and 75 percent of those who have heard of crypto don’t trust it. According to a May report from the Fed, just 7 percent of Americans hold cryptocurrencies. That said, there are undoubtedly single-issue crypto voters—though in unknown numbers.

But is it suicide to oppose crypto because the industry will pour money into your opponent’s campaign? Quite possibly.

That might explain why Donald Trump, who once called bitcoin “a scam against the dollar,” changed his tune this year. “If you’re in favor of crypto,” he declared in May, “you better vote for Trump.” By July, he was promising to turn the U.S. into the “crypto capital of the planet” and suggesting that a “little crypto check” could erase the nation’s $35 trillion national debt. And in mid-September, amid a historically tight presidential race, the convicted fraudster nonetheless made time to launch his family’s new crypto business, World Liberty Financial—while remaining comically vague on the subject. “Crypto is one of those things we have to do,” wrote Trump on X. “Whether we like it or not, I have to do it.”

Top Democrats sound similarly obtuse. “We all believe in the future of crypto,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on a recent “Crypto4Harris” fundraising call, promising swift action on crypto legislation. (Earlier that day, the Fairshake PAC had donated $3 million apiece to Elissa Slotkin and Ruben Gallego, two pro-crypto Democrats running for Senate.) In campaigning for president, Kamala Harris has broken with Joe Biden—a crypto skeptic—and called for a “reset” with the industry. In an economic policy document released by her campaign on Thursday, Harris said she would “encourage innovative technologies like AI and digital assets,” and Semafor reported the same day that Harris is “already dispatching aides to court well-heeled crypto investors and their Democratic allies in Congress.”

With crypto pointing a $200 million gun at their heads, it makes sense that Democrats would seek détente. Yet it’s not clear whether they grasp the inherently extremist politics of crypto, with its seditious fantasies of sovereignty. In The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism, David Golumbia outlined how crypto projects like bitcoin are rooted in right-wing ideas. For example, bitcoiners largely accept the “pillar of extremist thought” that “government is inherently evil,” thus necessitating a shift to secretive digital currency. Golumbia further exposed how pro-crypto arguments often echo far-right conspiracy theories depicting the Federal Reserve as a nefarious force bent on world domination. This explains why so many crypto enthusiasts end up sounding like right-wing crackpots.

There is no better example than Balaji Srinivasan, who served as chief technology officer of Coinbase from 2018 to 2019. In April, I wrote for TNR about his techno-authoritarian ideas for San Francisco, where he envisions the rise of a tech-aligned “gray tribe” that would expel Democrats. Srinivasan also describes the U.S. as a collapsing nation and preaches the need for tech plutocrats to create privately owned crypto countries. He suggests crypto can shift the global political order by chiseling away at the power of government-issued currencies.

“Bitcoin, if it wins, completely changes the world, because it changes the ability of centralized states to do what they’ve been doing,” he said.

Srinivasan is the leading evangelist of the Network State, which he defines as “a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states.” But the subtitle of his 2022 book on the subject provides the most succinct definition: How to Start Your Own Country.

Armstrong is a fan of his former employee, whom he has called a “genius” and one of the “top three smartest people I’ve ever met.” Last year, he invested in the Balaji Fund, which supports Network State projects worldwide. And he blurbed Srinivasan’s book, writing “Balaji is a visionary, and one of the most original thinkers of our time. Many have had the experience of hearing him say something, thinking it was crazy, and then a year or two later realizing ‘Balaji was right.’ I think Balaji will be right about The Network State.”

Let that sink in a moment—it’s not unlike how some people talk about Trump. But the truth is that things Trump says are still crazy, and that’s true of Srinivasan too. At the recent Network State conference, which he organized, Srinivasan said the Fed is trying to kill people financially: “Bitcoin is about stopping the state from slowly draining your wealth.… The Fed, they want you dead, just a little bit every year.”

But in some ways, Armstrong cuts a more frightening figure, in that he’s gullible—but also insanely wealthy and increasingly influential in Washington.

“You certainly were a pioneer here,” Armstrong told Srinivasan in their chat at the conference, “and I’ve come to believe more and more in this vision that you have, and I’ve started to see it happen.” He agreed with Srinivasan’s suggestion that passports could someday be issued by tech companies rather than governments, then added, “Crypto and bitcoin really unbundled money from the state, and so we’re seeing that next layer get unbundled from the state, which is identity. It does seem kind of antiquated in a way that the form of identity we have today is, like, a piece of paper that the government printed.”

These aren’t just the daydreams of Silicon Valley dilettantes. They are attempting to put these ideas into practice.

Multiple projects are underway. Próspera, a private tech city in Honduras, markets itself as a libertarian paradise with low taxes and pro-bitcoin policies. Located in a special economic zone on the Caribbean island of Roatán, it has become a hot destination for biohackers seeking experimental gene therapies and medical treatments (or simply to get a Tesla key implanted in their hand, as The New York Times Magazine reported in a recent feature story on the project). But the wannabe tech utopia has struggled since its establishment in 2020. It came into conflict with locals, who were put off by the development’s armed guards and worried that the company might try to take more land, and eventually faced a national backlash in a country where the average worker makes a few hundred dollars a month.

The special zones that made it possible, known as ZEDEs in Spanish, were created during a period of political corruption and turmoil following a 2009 military coup that ousted left-leaning President Manuel Zelaya. In 2022, the Honduran legislature, at the urging of President Xiomara Castro (wife of the president ousted in the coup), repealed the ZEDE laws. Last month, the Honduran Supreme Court declared the zones unconstitutional. But Próspera is fighting back: The company has filed a $10.7 billion lawsuit against the Honduran government.

The guy with the Tesla chip in his hand is Patri Friedman, a grandson of the economist Milton Friedman, the founder of Pronomos Capital, one of Próspera’s funders. The company, backed by tech billionaires Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen (and advised by Srinivasan), says it is funding similar projects around the globe, including in Africa and Asia. The basic idea: Work with governments to create regulation-free, privately owned territories that, over time, will negotiate for full sovereignty (or file massive lawsuits against their host governments, if the experience of Honduras is any indication).

Meanwhile, it’s not clear that politicians in Washington, who are among the least tech-savvy people in America, have any clue about this Network State movement—let alone the underlying goals it shares with the crypto industry. Most of them probably don’t even get how crypto works. I hate to admit it, but Peter Thiel was right when he said in a 1999 speech predicting the rise of crypto politics, “The people in D.C. are completely backwards, they don’t understand any of the technology and—even to the extent they can—it can’t be stopped.”

Of course, ignorance of an industry never prevented members of Congress from doing its bidding. In a matter of months, crypto has proven that it’s powerful enough to buy politicians’ positions—either directly, through generous campaign contributions, or indirectly, by threatening to fund their opponents. It truly can’t be stopped, it seems.

Nor will Coinbase’s Armstrong—who declined to comment for this article—and his cohort be satisfied once they have successfully bullied Congress into letting their industry do as it pleases without government interference. Crypto, after all, is just the gateway drug. Once politicians are hooked on it—which, this election season suggests, is already true—the crypto bros will get even more bold about pushing their more dangerous ideas: namely, the end of nation-states as we know them.

Praxis, a company funded by Andreessen, Srinivasan, and Thiel, along with OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Palantir’s Joe Lonsdale, is planning to build a tech-governed “cryptostate” in the Mediterranean. On September 18, it published a manifesto titled The Network State: Crypto’s End Game, which states, “As local communities dissolve and Nation States stumble, Network States will ascend. The next global superpower will be a Network State.”

The success of this plan necessarily requires the erosion of American democracy, if not its outright fall. Perhaps that’s why Trump himself is open to it: His official campaign platform contains a plan for so-called “Freedom Cities,” new settlements on federal land that seem to fit the Network State framework. No doubt, Trump is already thinking about how to profit from it.

Armstrong certainly is. At the Network State conference, he stressed the need to create “an archipelago” of these network states to serve as “refuge where the builders of the world can make sure they have a place to reside.” When asked to share a final thought with the audience, he didn’t miss a beat: “If you’re building network states, build them with Coinbase.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
acdha
1 day ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories