If anyone is curious, like me, what Cypherpunk means:
"A cypherpunk is one who advocates the widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a means of effecting social and political change."[0]
The crypto-oriented 4Seas coworking in Chiang Mai set up a very nice exhibit to cypherpunks as laid against the history of cryptography. I took pictures as the exhibit is supposed to have been taken down by now:
if it wasnt for needless landing pages where would we ever get a chance to use all the cool animation features browsers have accreted over the last 20 years.
Even worse than a redundant/useless landing page, is a page with an invalid certificate. Nothing nopes me out harder than having to tell my IT-governed browser to ignore the site operators faulty administration of their domain ..
I've peeked into that one. I've expected those people to be radical to some degree, but I didn't expect they write it down so clearly.
This writing wants to see the collapse of governments and democracy. I find it painful to read such radical statements. So I didn't get very deep.
But I am riddled how those people think a collapse of that scale will work out in their favor. They are deeply reliant on technology and the first thing to happen on collapse, is that many lights turn off.
This is the thing I don't understand about (a superficial interpretation of) anarchists; while governments are often not ideal, a lack of one wouldn't be better. And trusting people to self-organize is idealistic, but in practice it'd mean we go back to tribalism and "might makes right".
The idea is it wouldn’t work on trust, each element would be bounded by forces other than a single structure; getting to the state in which self-regulation is possible is the difficult, or maybe impossible, part. When in the regulated state, power grabs wouldn’t work.
The way they would self-regulate (self-organize) is into tribes/gangs. And that works (for some value of "works") until one tribe/gang becomes too powerful.
> The way they would self-regulate (self-organize) is into tribes/gangs.
I assume you mean "gang" in the sense of, "Hey honey, a non-rivalrous gang converted this luxury hotel into a mutual aid hospital, let's go get that rash looked at."
If not, your assertion is at odds with what Orwell described in Homage to Catalonia.
I'm not even a fan of anarchism, but I am a fan of reading about these things.
It’s interesting to think about the ‘best’ way to organise a society; its enticing to think that society could be contained in a single encompassing structure, but such a structure is impossible.
Human-implemented anarchism might be futile, because it is already implemented, and there is no sovereign with agency above our institutions. It becomes apparent, in the second quarter of the 21st century, that any co-operative agreements and intergovernmental treaties are just as vulnerable as gang treaties.
If the world only stratified, with no balkanisation, it would form a homogeneous structure, but something prevents this. What?
There was this really good short story illustrating this: (edited to add: "Cloak of Anarchy", Larry Niven, thx to below).
A park where anything goes ... because sentry robots keep the peace. When the robots break, things get scary quickly.
I've become convinced that a well-governed society is the perfect foundation for a limited anarchist commune set up on property legally purchased. Libertarian, essentially. Or Amish.
> This is the thing I don't understand about (a superficial interpretation of) anarchists
I think most superficial interpretations of anarchists are based on edgy LARPers rather than real political ideology.
Fun fact: Anarchy means "without rulers", not "without laws" or "without social order". There's a wide diversity of political thought under this umbrella, but the key underlying common denominator is (on some level, at least) a rejection of hierarchy (and often a rejection of capital).
Though it's fun to imagine what the philosophical and political beliefs that underpin a colloquial understanding of the word might look like, the answer is usually simply: Teenagers.
Maybe don't be so dismissive of that which you lack a thorough understanding.
Recommend reading "Against the State" by James Stout, wherein he describes history of various Anarchist societies, including Barcelona during Spanish fascism, Myanmar where they are very successfully fighting the junta which wrested control from their civilian government, and Rojava where he personally visited and gives a firsthand account.
Understood, apologize for my misconception of your assertion. Mass media, of course, is only too happy to cultivate such misconceptions on the part of the public.
I get the impression that even the definition of "anarchy" itself is subject to anarchy, with lots of disagreements and infighting. The more even-keeled anarchists that I've seen stress that they're not against hierarchies, only involuntary hierarchies, with the idea being that individuals should be welcome to organize themselves into hierarchies into which they delegate power, as long as that power can be revoked at any time, which sounds like a reasonable proposition. And then there's crypto-anarchism, which is just right-libertarianism in a Scooby Doo monster mask.
Its not a rational position, rather a kneejerk emotional one. Various other extreme positions share the same setup (nazism, communism etc).
Try talking to some anarchists and its pretty obvious their ideas don't go deep nor can stand well some questioning. Once you are in fairy land, anything may seem like a good idea to tackle ie some injustice.
It's the anti-establishment impulse taken to extremes. Anarchism is one of the niche destinations of that mindset. Another, ironically, is full blown communism.
What's sort of funny, is how all these seemingly polar-opposite anti-establishment flavors are actually far closer to each other than they are to mainstream political left or right.
The anti-establishment part ends up overriding everything else
That's how you end up with Bernie/Trump crossover voters
How is it ironic? Anarchists were a big part of the First International and left-anarchists can usually be considered to be socialists. They are not polar opposites, rather communism and (left-)anarchism are the statist and republican/federalist (loosely authoritarian and libertarian) expressions of the same underlying ideology of human equality.
> expressions of the same underlying ideology of human equality
I have no clue how any equality minded person could vote republicans or trump.
I get that you want to point out the overlap of the ideologies, but I don't see how they are remotely attributable to the current political landscape. (Strictly in the equality matter)
I didn't mention anything about the current political landscape? I did write republican/federalist, but republican is meant in the dictionary sense, not the US political party.
Trump is not a socialist or an anarchist of any kind (I have a hard time believing he has any political ideology or even ideas about governance at all), and neither are the vast majority of the political establishment.
People who want to get rid of "the government" are not thinking too deeply.
"Government" is the creator and enforcer of the rules of society; it's merely a matter of flavor of what that looks like: democratic, Church, warlord, corporate state, etc.
Nature abhors a vacuum and a power vacuum will always be filled -- I'd rather it be a democratic version, which is the least-worst option.
I've been a bit out of the loop with Austrian Economics (last re-read of Human Action was ~15 years ago). I'm very well read in it and enjoy the aesthetics of the theories and the history of thought books but got very tired of the online flame-wars and the political side in general (both the pro- and anti-Austrians). So Praxeology of Privacy sounds like an interesting read, I'll give it a go this year.
Side note: I love literature, but I can not for the life of me understand how anyone can consider non-fiction enjoyable to read. Informative, perhaps interesting, yes, but enjoyable? Heck no. Take me as far away from reality as possible.
Interesting– Conversely, that is exactly how I feel about reading fiction.
To me, how can you possibly enjoy reading something some other person simply ... made up? Like an elaborate lie?
Contrarily, non-fiction tells it how it happened within the very reality I myself live in, subject to the same laws of nature and real psychology, and therefore, and only therefore, able to teach me something about real life on this earth.
Perhaps unrelated, but that reminds me of the inevitable avalanche of identical replies to every submission on aphantasia, all proclaiming that, no, they do indeed find it odd that there are people who can visualise internally.
Do you enjoy watching movies or series, reading comics? Going to the theatre (as in - not movies, but actual theatre)?
Edit: Do note that I wrote enjoy - I've certainly read my fair share of non-fiction. A classic Agatha Christy murder-mystery, while set in the real world, is anything but realistic.
but often the fantasy does help shape your reality and identity. an author finding a way to vocalize and make a concept or feeling tangible like its coming out of the mouth of someone that you can respect or despise with such strong emotion is extremely powerful. and sure you can get that from nonfiction (which i also do love some of the driest science texts lol) but there is something amazing about seeing how something could play out, or how it would be to experience this reality. maybe you just havent found what clicks for you yet or what perfectly speaks to you and maybe you never will, but its not worth writing it ALL off. for me at least it's the emotional resonance you can find with fiction that makes it all the more worth it. Do i agree with Char Aznable no, do i agree with Amuro Ray? yes. do i find merit and incompatibilities in both of their ideologies? yes. has it helped me see the kind of world that the creator wishes to envision and wants to make us question for ourselves? yes. its the connection. i just love it.
and dont write off comics either, there is some genuine phenomenally emotional works in that medium.
"All the world's a stage,And all the men and women merely players;They have their exits and their entrances,And one man in his time plays many parts,His acts being seven ages."
>Contrarily, non-fiction tells it how it happened within the very reality I myself live in, subject to the same laws of nature and real psychology, and therefore, and only therefore, able to teach me something about real life on this earth.
This is me trying to pick up most bullshit written from humanities or arts; a 99% of it it's carefully crafted nonsense for ahem mainly emotionaly driven women and artsy people with very subjective opinions instead of accepting the reality as is.
Elaborated jokes OTOH can be trully clever and a good source of laughs and fun.
Also, Discworld from Pratchett, as they have obvious magical analogies to real life devices and scientific procedures.
You have to read better non-fiction then. Take history for example. Certain real events are more fascinating than any fictional story, and the right author can take you on an unforgettable journey, unfolding the world as it developed.
Nitpicking on style: hover animation on the books could not be capped by the container size and just overflow the content. Great case for page transition. Move the 3d book into the space where it will be located with single view.
Everything on the Internet is public domain, up for grabs
In the past you could argue about legal stuff but now the LLM training companies have proven that beyond all doubt, it is not only possible but even legal to use any Internet material as you see fit.
Why would that be sarcasm on a site that calls itself “hacker”news?
We aren’t exactly law abiding citizens, more anarchists really.
That comes with certain mindset about the copyright. I can’t remember the last day I didn’t violate some kind of law of a corporate state. It’s spiritual almost, highlight of the day.
You can be sure that whatever you posted online that had any value, have already been on my hard drive two times over. Sometimes even modified and passed along.
79 comments:
If anyone is curious, like me, what Cypherpunk means:
"A cypherpunk is one who advocates the widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a means of effecting social and political change."[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk
Funnily, this small library features works outside of it's domain, including a manifesto from PKK terrorist organization leader..
https://www.cypherpunkbooks.com/book/definition-of-democrati...
The book in question. What was the intent or purpose of coming at this sideways?
They call themselves "PKK Terrorist Organization"?
Did you read it?
The crypto-oriented 4Seas coworking in Chiang Mai set up a very nice exhibit to cypherpunks as laid against the history of cryptography. I took pictures as the exhibit is supposed to have been taken down by now:
https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/113373898014727437041/pl...
I have photos of the individual exhibit pieces too if anyone's interested.
Privacy for the citizens and transparency for the government. Sadly, all democracies are right in the middle of establishing the polar opposite.
Middle? We are way past the point
nice work, interesting page
I don't think you need a pretty landing page and the content of https://www.cypherpunkbooks.com/collection
could directly live under
https://www.cypherpunkbooks.com/
it's a website with information and I really want to see the collection and information insteda of just a single headline with an animation
if it wasnt for needless landing pages where would we ever get a chance to use all the cool animation features browsers have accreted over the last 20 years.
What is this very mild cyberpunk motif doing in my cyberpunk library website?
Even worse than a redundant/useless landing page, is a page with an invalid certificate. Nothing nopes me out harder than having to tell my IT-governed browser to ignore the site operators faulty administration of their domain ..
It might be helpful to rotate the books on the frontpage so that that you can read them by binding without tilting your head.
> THE CYPHERNOMICON
I've peeked into that one. I've expected those people to be radical to some degree, but I didn't expect they write it down so clearly.
This writing wants to see the collapse of governments and democracy. I find it painful to read such radical statements. So I didn't get very deep.
But I am riddled how those people think a collapse of that scale will work out in their favor. They are deeply reliant on technology and the first thing to happen on collapse, is that many lights turn off.
This is the thing I don't understand about (a superficial interpretation of) anarchists; while governments are often not ideal, a lack of one wouldn't be better. And trusting people to self-organize is idealistic, but in practice it'd mean we go back to tribalism and "might makes right".
The idea is it wouldn’t work on trust, each element would be bounded by forces other than a single structure; getting to the state in which self-regulation is possible is the difficult, or maybe impossible, part. When in the regulated state, power grabs wouldn’t work.
The way they would self-regulate (self-organize) is into tribes/gangs. And that works (for some value of "works") until one tribe/gang becomes too powerful.
> The way they would self-regulate (self-organize) is into tribes/gangs.
I assume you mean "gang" in the sense of, "Hey honey, a non-rivalrous gang converted this luxury hotel into a mutual aid hospital, let's go get that rash looked at."
If not, your assertion is at odds with what Orwell described in Homage to Catalonia.
I'm not even a fan of anarchism, but I am a fan of reading about these things.
Maybe so
It’s interesting to think about the ‘best’ way to organise a society; its enticing to think that society could be contained in a single encompassing structure, but such a structure is impossible.
Human-implemented anarchism might be futile, because it is already implemented, and there is no sovereign with agency above our institutions. It becomes apparent, in the second quarter of the 21st century, that any co-operative agreements and intergovernmental treaties are just as vulnerable as gang treaties.
If the world only stratified, with no balkanisation, it would form a homogeneous structure, but something prevents this. What?
We have a bunch of temporarily embarrassed tribal warlords among us.
There was this really good short story illustrating this: (edited to add: "Cloak of Anarchy", Larry Niven, thx to below).
A park where anything goes ... because sentry robots keep the peace. When the robots break, things get scary quickly.
I've become convinced that a well-governed society is the perfect foundation for a limited anarchist commune set up on property legally purchased. Libertarian, essentially. Or Amish.
Cloak of Anarchy, Larry Niven.
> This is the thing I don't understand about (a superficial interpretation of) anarchists
I think most superficial interpretations of anarchists are based on edgy LARPers rather than real political ideology.
Fun fact: Anarchy means "without rulers", not "without laws" or "without social order". There's a wide diversity of political thought under this umbrella, but the key underlying common denominator is (on some level, at least) a rejection of hierarchy (and often a rejection of capital).
Though it's fun to imagine what the philosophical and political beliefs that underpin a colloquial understanding of the word might look like, the answer is usually simply: Teenagers.
Maybe don't be so dismissive of that which you lack a thorough understanding.
Recommend reading "Against the State" by James Stout, wherein he describes history of various Anarchist societies, including Barcelona during Spanish fascism, Myanmar where they are very successfully fighting the junta which wrested control from their civilian government, and Rojava where he personally visited and gives a firsthand account.
Sure, but these are still Societies.
Not the absence of a society, where utter lawlessness reigns. Most people's colloquial idea of anarchy is a Mad Max film.
I'm not being dismissive at all of anything except the public's misconceptions.
Understood, apologize for my misconception of your assertion. Mass media, of course, is only too happy to cultivate such misconceptions on the part of the public.
I get the impression that even the definition of "anarchy" itself is subject to anarchy, with lots of disagreements and infighting. The more even-keeled anarchists that I've seen stress that they're not against hierarchies, only involuntary hierarchies, with the idea being that individuals should be welcome to organize themselves into hierarchies into which they delegate power, as long as that power can be revoked at any time, which sounds like a reasonable proposition. And then there's crypto-anarchism, which is just right-libertarianism in a Scooby Doo monster mask.
Its not a rational position, rather a kneejerk emotional one. Various other extreme positions share the same setup (nazism, communism etc).
Try talking to some anarchists and its pretty obvious their ideas don't go deep nor can stand well some questioning. Once you are in fairy land, anything may seem like a good idea to tackle ie some injustice.
It's the anti-establishment impulse taken to extremes. Anarchism is one of the niche destinations of that mindset. Another, ironically, is full blown communism.
What's sort of funny, is how all these seemingly polar-opposite anti-establishment flavors are actually far closer to each other than they are to mainstream political left or right.
The anti-establishment part ends up overriding everything else
That's how you end up with Bernie/Trump crossover voters
How is it ironic? Anarchists were a big part of the First International and left-anarchists can usually be considered to be socialists. They are not polar opposites, rather communism and (left-)anarchism are the statist and republican/federalist (loosely authoritarian and libertarian) expressions of the same underlying ideology of human equality.
> expressions of the same underlying ideology of human equality
I have no clue how any equality minded person could vote republicans or trump.
I get that you want to point out the overlap of the ideologies, but I don't see how they are remotely attributable to the current political landscape. (Strictly in the equality matter)
I didn't mention anything about the current political landscape? I did write republican/federalist, but republican is meant in the dictionary sense, not the US political party.
Trump is not a socialist or an anarchist of any kind (I have a hard time believing he has any political ideology or even ideas about governance at all), and neither are the vast majority of the political establishment.
Well the previous commenter mentioned the trump/sanders crossvoting, I guess you just ignored that to focus in the ideologies.
Maybe it just reads weird or I read it weird, to read trump at some point and someone else ending the sentence with equality.
Ah interesting history there, thanks. Maybe I'm using the term incorrectly
The continuum I was picturing is: big central planning government <--> little-to-no government (anarchy)
In any case, I guess I'm just restating a version of the old horseshoe theory
The collapse of the government does not imply the collapse of civil society.
People who want to get rid of "the government" are not thinking too deeply.
"Government" is the creator and enforcer of the rules of society; it's merely a matter of flavor of what that looks like: democratic, Church, warlord, corporate state, etc.
Nature abhors a vacuum and a power vacuum will always be filled -- I'd rather it be a democratic version, which is the least-worst option.
I've been a bit out of the loop with Austrian Economics (last re-read of Human Action was ~15 years ago). I'm very well read in it and enjoy the aesthetics of the theories and the history of thought books but got very tired of the online flame-wars and the political side in general (both the pro- and anti-Austrians). So Praxeology of Privacy sounds like an interesting read, I'll give it a go this year.
Lots of "digital cash" books there. I have to say that Bitcoin and Ethereum have not lived up to their cypherpunk ethos.
back when crypto meant crypto not crypto
Site wants to access other devices on local network, o rly?
Side note: I love literature, but I can not for the life of me understand how anyone can consider non-fiction enjoyable to read. Informative, perhaps interesting, yes, but enjoyable? Heck no. Take me as far away from reality as possible.
Though, of course, to each their own.
Interesting– Conversely, that is exactly how I feel about reading fiction.
To me, how can you possibly enjoy reading something some other person simply ... made up? Like an elaborate lie?
Contrarily, non-fiction tells it how it happened within the very reality I myself live in, subject to the same laws of nature and real psychology, and therefore, and only therefore, able to teach me something about real life on this earth.
Both are valuable and present in a well rounded life. The Diary of Anne Frank and Those Who Leave Omelas cause you to question life in different ways.
Perhaps unrelated, but that reminds me of the inevitable avalanche of identical replies to every submission on aphantasia, all proclaiming that, no, they do indeed find it odd that there are people who can visualise internally.
Do you enjoy watching movies or series, reading comics? Going to the theatre (as in - not movies, but actual theatre)?
Edit: Do note that I wrote enjoy - I've certainly read my fair share of non-fiction. A classic Agatha Christy murder-mystery, while set in the real world, is anything but realistic.
> Do you enjoy watching movies or series, reading comics? Going to the theatre (as in - not movies, but actual theatre)?
I really for the most part do not. I've not even seen any of the big oscar winning pieces everyone keeps talking about.
As I said to another commentator on here as well:
Without any disdain, I cannot bring myself to watch hours of another person's fantasy, when I could instead be shaping my own reality.
but often the fantasy does help shape your reality and identity. an author finding a way to vocalize and make a concept or feeling tangible like its coming out of the mouth of someone that you can respect or despise with such strong emotion is extremely powerful. and sure you can get that from nonfiction (which i also do love some of the driest science texts lol) but there is something amazing about seeing how something could play out, or how it would be to experience this reality. maybe you just havent found what clicks for you yet or what perfectly speaks to you and maybe you never will, but its not worth writing it ALL off. for me at least it's the emotional resonance you can find with fiction that makes it all the more worth it. Do i agree with Char Aznable no, do i agree with Amuro Ray? yes. do i find merit and incompatibilities in both of their ideologies? yes. has it helped me see the kind of world that the creator wishes to envision and wants to make us question for ourselves? yes. its the connection. i just love it.
and dont write off comics either, there is some genuine phenomenally emotional works in that medium.
I have no understanding of your viewpoint. I wish I did, it sounds interesting. I do like a Crafting Interpreters or Mythical Man Month...
But I don't understand how those could not only be held to the same level as The Hobbit, but that you seem incapable of even reading Animal Farm.
Do you enjoy any fictional media? TV, movies, plays, interactive murder mystery dinners, tabletop games (d&d, etc)?
> Do you enjoy any fictional media? TV, movies, plays, interactive murder mystery dinners, tabletop games (d&d, etc)?
Nope, I truly live under a rock when it comes to those.
I've been wanting to watch the big ones (Hobbit, LotR, ...), but – and I say this with no disdain:
I simply cannot get myself to consume hours upon hours of somebody else's fantasy – when I could instead be shaping my own reality.
"All the world's a stage,And all the men and women merely players;They have their exits and their entrances,And one man in his time plays many parts,His acts being seven ages."
— William Shakespeare, Fantasy Author
This is fascinating. Do you enjoy music?
How about short jokes, or Unix fortune files?
>Contrarily, non-fiction tells it how it happened within the very reality I myself live in, subject to the same laws of nature and real psychology, and therefore, and only therefore, able to teach me something about real life on this earth.
This is me trying to pick up most bullshit written from humanities or arts; a 99% of it it's carefully crafted nonsense for ahem mainly emotionaly driven women and artsy people with very subjective opinions instead of accepting the reality as is.
Elaborated jokes OTOH can be trully clever and a good source of laughs and fun.
Also, Discworld from Pratchett, as they have obvious magical analogies to real life devices and scientific procedures.
You have to read better non-fiction then. Take history for example. Certain real events are more fascinating than any fictional story, and the right author can take you on an unforgettable journey, unfolding the world as it developed.
do you have any recommendations?
If you can read French, I recommend Saint-Simon as the quintessential counter-example. In English, I found "Why I Write" by Orwell very entertaining.
You have to make your own stories as you go along. Plug that fresh knowledge into hypothetical scenarios from stuff you've learned before.
If you don't enjoy learning you may be in a minority here.
It sounds almost as if you're saying learning is only possible by reading, which, I would argue, most of the history of humanity proves false.
Stupid take, one can learn from fiction too.
And not everything's about learning. You are allowed to do things strictly because you enjoy doing them, with no ulterior motive.
Please do not take this question any particular way, I'm just curious:
Do you happen to be female?
Making a throwaway account to "just ask a question" is a weird thing to do.
Yea. Internet does that to people
What difference does it make?
the hover animation on the books in `/` slows down my Firefox
Cool project nonetheless! Enjoyed browsing through the options
Nitpicking on style: hover animation on the books could not be capped by the container size and just overflow the content. Great case for page transition. Move the 3d book into the space where it will be located with single view.
Firefox user here too.
If a site like this isn’t using your browser to mine bitcoin I’d be incredibly disappointed.
Everything on the Internet is public domain, up for grabs
In the past you could argue about legal stuff but now the LLM training companies have proven that beyond all doubt, it is not only possible but even legal to use any Internet material as you see fit.
I really hope this is sarcasm.
Why would that be sarcasm on a site that calls itself “hacker”news?
We aren’t exactly law abiding citizens, more anarchists really.
That comes with certain mindset about the copyright. I can’t remember the last day I didn’t violate some kind of law of a corporate state. It’s spiritual almost, highlight of the day.
You can be sure that whatever you posted online that had any value, have already been on my hard drive two times over. Sometimes even modified and passed along.
What are you going to do about it?
> a site that calls itself “hacker”news?
H in HN = D in DPRK
> Why would that be sarcasm on a site that calls itself “hacker”news?
Let me beat that dead horse once more for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_culture
Someone certainly wants you to think that way. Keep slurping it up
Nice - can't wait to see how it grows!
Looks really nice, but 10 fps in Firefox.
Buttery smooth for me in Firefox (mac)
Nice to see Tim May writings on HN
Great work! Open access to knowledge is always a win.