Pretty confident it’s going to be EUR, note how they dealt with Trump tariff’s shenanigans. Took it slowly, and decidedly, sure let the countries say words and what not, but at the end of the day it’s decided by the EU. Just one persons opinion.
And you're not terrified that's the situation? The beef the US has with the EUR is simple: the US is what's defending Europe militarily (nuclear and non-nuclear. The Pentagon is the reason Ukraine hasn't been nuked yet, or more likely, that Kiyv didn't surrender because they didn't have nukes). That was never given freely. It was politically impossible to get governments to actually pay for that, so it was decided to trade in USD (this was before petrodollar), giving the US "exorbitant privilege" (which roughly translates to that the US gets to tax most of global trade at something like 2 to 4% and use that for themselves). That the US got that was not an accident, but a policy decision. The Euro takes that away, but of course, no European country is willing to either now start paying, or to defend itself. To say nothing of France, the Netherlands or Denmark defending remote EU territories like Greenland, ABC islands or Polynesia (which would require, for starters, militarily controlling supply lines to those territories).
Given the history of economic sanctions (what the EU is doing) ... of course people don't know that history, but the TLDR is that nearly always economic sanctions are a prelude to war. They don't just not work. In many cases they cause wars. WW1 was caused by economic sanctions (and the scale of EU economic sanctions is 100x bigger than what caused WW1), and often the economic sanctions on Germany after WW1 are generally thought to be the big reason for WW2. It makes sense from a game theory perspective: if a government, whose power is fundamentally based on force, lets economic sanctions convince them, they will be attacked by their own people. So they simply cannot give in, and historically that's what you indeed mostly see: when a country is targeted by economic sanctions, it's government usually decides to attack.
The EUR is imposing very large scale sanctions on ... essentially everyone. Russia and China most obviously of course, but sanctions are so widely used by the EU you can literally say it's being used against everyone from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, or geographically from Paraguay to North Korea. And why is the EU doing this? Exactly the reason Trump is doing it: sanctions are "power without needing parliament to approve the budget for anything".
The fear is: the historically most likely outcome of what the EU is doing, what EUR is being used for, is another very large scale war.
Linus Torvalds, imo, is the reason we have open source, through Linux & Git. He’s the open source philosopher king.
I think he’s put enough in to know where his allegiance lies, over a 2010 US citizenship - a very different world.
There is also 0 chance, US/MS government hasn’t put a lot of pressure on him over the last 34 years of creating and spreading, at least the OS form of socialism
"hey," is a project I've been developing over the past several years, exploring a question that feels increasingly important for distributed systems:
Can identity, topology, and communication emerge directly from information itself — without configuration, without fixed IDs, without ports, without keys, and without a discovery service?
In "hey,", every node starts from the same initial bytes (ROOT) and evolves a recursively defined structure by folding in every event it experiences:
- success or failure when binding a port
- messages received
- local input
- the state projections of other nodes
This evolving structure is not metadata.
It is the node’s identity, its history, and its behaviour model.
From that single structure, nodes deterministically derive:
- their network port
- their next fallback port
- how they interpret peer messages
- how they respond
- and how they integrate into the mesh
There is no configuration.
No bootstrap server.
No membership protocol.
No global routing.
Yet nodes still discover each other, stabilise into a mesh, form communication channels, and maintain a shared symbolic dataspace — what I think of as a “symbol economy,” where meaning emerges naturally from entropy and interaction.
The system is minimal, but the implications are larger:
it hints at distributed systems driven by number theory and information flow rather than named identities or predesigned roles.
This could form the basis for:
- self-assembling P2P networks
- identity models rooted in informational history
- new forms of symbolic deduplication or superposition
- topology that emerges mathematically rather than being configured
- communication layers defined by entropic deltas instead of message schemas
The project is still early, but the underlying idea feels promising, and the current implementation already shows coherent (and sometimes surprising) emergent behaviour.
Alternatively, who would you trust with your data, an Ad company run by a McKinsey executive, or an NPO with a direct revenue stream partnered with Apple?
I’m not sure they need to coordinate, except for the state of US Politics. Take the hit now, then seek a long term better deal elsewhere, with more stable policies.
Out of curiosity, would you still need to pay the full tariff, if the cost of an item that was shifted to a token/smart contract, that only enabled a right to purchase, but reduce the device cost to like a dollar or shipping.
It’d be pretty cool if someone derived a legal smart contract solution. One could argue that, the tech enabled products are two things a digital service, and a manufactured product. Those costs could be potentially be seperated.
Interesting, I’d like to understand your argument. What exactly are you trying to say? I’d say what you see as kindness and generosity, was not so much that as a tool, to create and maintain an American economy that far outweighs its actual importance. Aid, Commoditised people, Petrodollar, Reserve currency.
One thing, I’d like to understand is do regular Americans think that the country, following an isolationist policy will out compete the rest of the world?
I’ve become a bit of fan of it over the last few years. That said, I don’t think the UK can be replicated.
It wraps ultimate power up in a contradiction, you have it but you can’t use it. Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act.
Another important aspect, the for and against is currently split between parties, so there’s somewhat of unification factor between parties on that divide as well.
It gets a lot of hate, because it is imperfect, but I don’t think it gets its fair shake. My views more of, if it ain’t broke is it really worth the risk changing it.
reply