I like a lot of what other people have said here (faith backed by a trusted party, representation of debt, etc), but I just want to drive home the point that money has value because we said it has value. Under a system of barter, you end up with people valuing things differently. So we switched to the gold standard, but then that constrained growth. Now we have fiat currency which is based on faith.

The reason why we chose gold was because it was relatively useless at the time, only good for making things look pretty essentially. It was valuable because it was rare, and since it was rare, a central authority could control the supply because it takes a lot of capital to extract and process. Modern fiat is similar, but the rarity (making it a good substitute for value of other goods and services) comes from the government being the only person who can issue it. It’s honestly kind of a weird paradox. It has to be cheap and ubiquitous enough that the supply isn’t limited, but rare enough that we accept it as a stand in for value. In an alternate universe, we could have chosen river rocks (not useful for other purposes, so no one would be tempted to take supply out of the system to use for other means, and pretty ubiquitous), but we couldn’t effectively control the supply.

I’m interested where this comes from too. Is it just because they aren’t a FOSS project?

Similar idea to how the Dao works in Daoism. “The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao”

I’m not some great logician or anything, but in its most basic framing “You don’t need to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide” would be along the lines of a proving too much fallacy as the conclusion is much too broad for the argument of just having nothing to hide. As with a lot of informal fallacies (fallacies made due to content and/or context of the argument), you could probably ascribe a few of them to this statement, for example you could probably correctly state that this is a thought-terminating cliché as well.

Depending on how it is deployed, as described in one of the comments of the linked post, this could also constitute a formal fallacy (reasoning with a flaw in its structure), specifically denying the antecedent. As a TL;DR, the structure would have to be “If you have something to hide then you should worry about surveillance [if p then q], therefore if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn’t worry about surveillance [if !p then !q]”.

In my personal view call it a fallacy or not, the strongest arguments against “nothing to hide” have nothing to do with its fallacious nature or lack thereof. Additionally, demonstrating that an argument is fallacious just demonstrates that the argument needs to be reconstructed, rephrased, or better supported, not that its conclusion is false (else you fall victim to argument from fallacy, aka the fallacy fallacy).

Not sure about Volla Phone, but it looks like FuriLabs will run on T-Mobile or their MVNOs (see here)

Don’t know much about xTiles, but Joplin is my go to for notes and things

Idiocy, Actual

StoryGraph is my favorite for a Goodreads replacement

Seems like they don’t have federation turned on either, unfortunately

Unless you take the “i” in Alien to be the imaginary number, then it’s -Alien

I may be one of these people. At least for the more obscure places, the highway pullouts and national forests and things, if I see another person parked there, I’ll typically park next to them. Safety in numbers, the more people parked in a turnout, the more legitimate it looks to park there

This is interesting. I’ve been wanting to sign up for something like this, Incogni, or DeleteMe for a while, but haven’t done any research yet