Zwillingssterns Weltenwald

Willkommen im Weltenwald! Auf diesen Seiten schreibt Arne Babenhauserheide alias Draketo alias Zwillingsstern alias ((λ()'Dr.ArneBab)).

Themen: Wissen(-schaft), Software, Politik, Anderes, Kreatives und Rollenspiel.

Ich hoffe, Du findest hier Anregungen zum eigenen Denken und Träumen!

Neuste Beiträge

Neuste Beiträge meiner » alten Seite «

(weitere auf der alten Seite und der ganz alten Seite)

The greenhouse effect, calculated again

[2019-11-08 Fr 23:41] PDF

PDF (drucken)

Org (ändern)

I did not want to talk about the greenhouse effect without having checked the math and physics. Therefore I calculated it myself.

If you want all links to work, read the the PDF-version.

The greenhouse effect describes the effect of the atmosphere on Earth’s surface temperature. The simplest example contrasts the surface temperature of a planet without atmosphere to the surface temperature with a single insulating layer above the surface.

The incoming radiation from the Sun provides the earth with a constant source of energy. If it would not get rid of that energy somehow, it would get hotter everyday, eventually melt and vaporize. It’s evident that this does not happen (otherwise we would not be here to think about it).

As shown by citet{Stefan1879} and citet{Boltzmann1884}, the total energy emission from a perfect black body (a body which absorbs all incoming radiation) per unit area is given by

egin{equation} E = igma T4 nd{equation}

with the Stefan–Boltzmann constant

egin{equation} igma = rac{2 pi5 k4}{15 c2 h3} pprox 5.67 cdot 10-8 W m-2 K-4 nd{equation}

From satellite measurements in the Earth’s orbit we know that the incident solar radiation delivers an average energy flux (j) between 1361 (Wm-2) during the solar minimum and to 1363 (Wm-2) during the solar maximum citep{KoppSolarConstant2011}.

This radiation hits the cross section of the Earth, the area of a circle with the radius of the Earth: (pi R2). This is also the energy radiated by the Earth system, as evidenced by the Earth neither melting nor freezing. But this outgoing radiation is perpendicular to the surface, not to the cross section of the Earth. The total surface of a sphere is (4 imes pi R2), or (4 imes) its cross section. So the energy radiated per area is just 25% of the incoming energy: (σTout4 = 0.25 imes σTin4)

greenhouse-effect due to the difference between directed solar-irradiation and radial earth-radiation

The incident radiation delivers an Energy flux of (Ei = 1362 Wm2), so the outgoing radiation of a perfect black body would be (Eo = 340.5 Wm-2), which is consistent with a temperature of

egin{equation} T = left(rac{E}{σ} ight)rac{1}{4} = left(rac{340.5 cdot 15 c2 h3}{2 pi5 k4} ight)rac{1}{4} K pprox left(rac{340.5}{5.67 cdot 10-8} ight)rac{1}{4} K = 278.623 K nd{equation}

This gives an average surface temperature of

egin{equation} (278.62

273.15) ^circ C = 5.47 ^circ C nd{equation}

for a perfectly black Earth without atmosphere.

Due to the simplifications used, this value is (8 K) lower than the measured mean sea and land surface temperature of (14 ^circ C) for the base period 1961-90 citep{Jones1999,Rayner2006}.

Historically the next step after the black body estimation was to take the albedo into account: The amount of incoming radiation reflected directly back into space.

If we take into account that the Earth surface and clouds reflect roughly 30% of the visible light back into space, the Earth only receives roughly 70% of the energy which it needs to radiate back. For details, see citet{Muller2012} and citet{Muller2013}.1 The equilibrium temperature changes to 255 Kelvin, which is just about -18 °C. Note that changing the albedo by 1 percent point (to 29% or 31%) would change the temperature by roughly 1 K.

(let* ((albedo 0.3) (sol 1362) (incoming-watt (* (- 1 albedo) (/ sol 4))) (c 3e8) (h 6.62607e-34) (k 1.38065e-23) (pi 3.14159)) (expt (/ (* incoming-watt 15 c c (expt h 3)) (* 2 (expt pi 5) (expt k 4))) 0.25))


egin{equation} T = left(rac{E}{σ} ight)rac{1}{4} = left(rac{0.7 cdot 340.5 cdot 15 c2 h3}{2 pi5 k4} ight)rac{1}{4} K pprox left(rac{238.0}{5.67 cdot 10-8} ight)rac{1}{4} K = 254.6 K nd{equation}

There are small additional factors in play:

  • effective temperature (radiation from a star) to air temperature (measured on Earth)
  • emissivity: Common values range from 0.90 to 0.98, with forests and urban areas staying close around 0.95, grassland peaking at 0.95 but with a noticeable tail towards 0.90 and barren soil and sparsely vegetated areas forming a broad distribution between 0.92 and 0.96 citep{Jin2006}. Snow 0.99 (Wan2002).

But with these we’re still roughly 30 Kelvin away from actual temperatures. These are reached through absorption and radial re-radiation of outgoing energy, which effectively provides the Earth with insulation, most effective in the infrared.

This is what is typically called the greenhouse effect: Infra-red emissions by the Earth are absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so the Earth needs to be warmer to get rid of the same amount of received energy.

Greenhouse gases have a net effect on the temperature, because the outgoing radiation mostly consists of thermal infrared light (TIR), while the incoming radiation mostly consists of near infrared (NIR) visible (VIS) and ultraviolet (UV) light. Let’s take the oldest account of this absorption: citet[“On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”]{Arrhenius1896} describes different absorption of moonlight depending on the wavelength of the light. Half this light absorbed in the atmosphere is radiated outwards, the other half inwards.

For the actual calculation, we use more recent results: citet[„The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2)and nitrogen (N2)“]{Hoepfner2012}. They take into account the structure of the atmosphere by building on the well-established Karlsruhe Optimized and Precise Radiative transfer Algorithm (KOPRA).

The publication by citet[]{Hoepfner2012} showed that Outgoing Longrange Radiation without gas would be 365.7 W/m(2), while with greenhouse gases it is 242.7 W/m(2). That’s a 33.6 % decrease in emission, so we need 1.5 times higher emissions to reach equilibrium. Let’s factor this into the equations, and also use an emissivity of 0.95.

(let* ((albedo 0.3) (emiss 0.95) (sol 1362) (incoming-watt (* (- 1 albedo) (/ sol 4))) (c 3e8) (h 6.62607e-34) (k 1.38065e-23) (pi 3.14159)) (expt (/ (* (/ 365.7 242.7) incoming-watt (/ 1 emiss) 15 c c (expt h 3)) (* 2 (expt pi 5) (expt k 4))) 0.25)) ;; for the numerator ;; (* (/ 365.7 242.7) (/ 1 emiss) incoming-watt))


egin{equation} T = left(rac{E}{σ} ight)rac{1}{4} = left(rac{rac{365.7}{242.7} cdot 0.7rac{1}{0.95} cdot 340.5 cdot 15 c2 h3}{2 pi5 k4} ight)rac{1}{4} K pprox left(rac{377.49}{5.67 cdot 10-8} ight)rac{1}{4} K = 285.74 K nd{equation}

We get 285.74 K as equilibrium temperature. That’s around 12.6°C, so now we’re just 1.4 Kelvin away from the actual (14 ^circ C) for the base period 1961-90 citep{Jones1999,Rayner2006}. There are still effects missing in the calculations, but the intention of this guide is not to create a new climate model, but to show the fundamental physical effects. Remember also that changing the surface albedo by 1 percent point (to 29% or 31%) would change the temperature by roughly 1 K, so getting within less than 2 °C of the measured temperature is already pretty good. Going further would require a much stricter treatment of surface albedo that goes into too much detail for an article.

Therefore we’ll round this up with an important test that is only weakly affected by the surface albedo:

What happens if we increase the absorption by CO(2)? Do we see global warming?

For this test the result is already close enough to the measured temperature that we can take the difference between values with different parameters to get the effect of these parameters and remove biases which are present in both values.

To calculate global warming due to doubled CO₂, we cannot just double the absorption, because the absorption bands get saturated. The citet[IPCC working group 1 (physical science basis)]{IPCCRadiativeForcingMyhre2013} gives the increase in radiative forcing due to increased CO(2) levels from the 1950 concentrations of about 310 ppm to the 2010 concentrations of 390 ppm as about 1.2 W/m(2).2

So let us go at this backwards: citet{Hoepfner2012} showed the state for 2012, what do our calculations predict for 1950 when we reduce the absorption due to CO(2) by the 1.2 W/m(2) radiative forcing given in the IPCC?3

The unstable emissions would then not be 242.7 W/m(2) as calculated by citet{Hoepfner2012}, but 243.9 W/m(2).

(let* ((albedo 0.3) (sol 1362) (emiss 0.95) (incoming-watt (* (- 1 albedo) (/ sol 4))) (c 3e8) (h 6.62607e-34) (k 1.38065e-23) (pi 3.14159)) (expt (/ (* (/ 365.7 (+ 242.7 1.2)) incoming-watt (/ 1 emiss) 15 c c (expt h 3)) (* 2 (expt pi 5) (expt k 4))) 0.25)) ;; for the numerator ;; (* (/ 365.7 (+ 242.7 1.2)) incoming-watt (/ 1 emiss)))


We get 285.39 Kelvin for 1950, about 0.35°C less than for

This gives an estimate of a 0.35°C increase in temperature from 1950 to 2010 due to increased CO(2) levels alone. If we also remove the added absorption from methane, N (2O) and other greenhouse gases emitted by humans (additional forcing of 0.75 W/m(2)), we get 285.17 Kelvin.

So this calculation from basics yields an increase of the equilibrium temperature by 0.57 °C.

egin{equation} T2010

T1950 = 285.74 K

285.17 K = 0.57 K nd{equation}

This is a bit lower than the increase of 0.65 K to 0.75 K seen in the global temperature records by the Berkeley Earth project,4 and close to the 0.6 to 0.8 K increase shown in the Global (NH+SH)/2 temperature given by HadCRUT4 by the Met Office Hadley Centre by the National Meteorological Service of the United Kingdom.5 But for a calculation from basic principles, that’s pretty good.

So we can conclude that actual measurements match this physical explanation of global warming due to the greenhouse effect — or more exactly: due to increased absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases, with the biggest effect due to CO(2).

The source of climate-active human carbon emissions which influences the CO(2) content of the atmosphere is mostly burning of fossil fuel which is taken from the crust of the Earth and introduced into the carbon cycle. This is what changes the CO(2) concentration.

And with this, we are done.

Please reduce your carbon emissions and become active to get politicians to action on a national and global scale. We’re cutting the branch we live on.

If you want more details, have a look at the IPCC reports. Best start with the executive summary and then go into the details you’re most interested in:

IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

An explanation how humans increase the CO₂-concentration of the atmosphere is available in my presentation The carbon cycle: https://www.draketo.de/licht/physik/kohlenstoffkreislauf-carbon-cycle

And if you want my best estimate of our current situation, have a look at the article Two visions of our future: https://www.draketo.de/english/politics/roll-a-die



You can check the albedo for several different spectral regions at http://www.globalbedo.org/


Robust data about changing CO(2) levels is available from the Global Monitoring Division (GMD) of the Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


We’re only going to 1950 and not back to 1850, because the temperature data at 1850 would mix in the effect of the declining little ice age.


Berkeley Earth provides a reevaluation of all the surface measurements without complex models.


HadCRUT4 combines sea surface temperature data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

Autor: Arne Babenhauserheide

Anhang Größe greenhouse-effect.org 20.95 KB greenhouse-effect-solar-radiation-earth-radiation.svg 14.6 KB greenhouse-effect-solar-radiation-earth-radiation.png 62.39 KB greenhouse-effect-thumbnail.png 12.76 KB greenhouse-effect.pdf 349.56 KB


What I need from IntelliJ and what I deeply miss when I’m not using Emacs

[2019-10-27 So 22:05] Inhaltsverzeichnis

    What I really need from IntelliJ

1.1. inspection

1.2. refactor

1.3. run

1.4. debug

1.5. other

    What I deeply miss when not using Emacs

2.1. keyboard shortcuts

2.2. editing

2.3. windows

2.4. files

2.5. interop

2.6. movement

2.7. Feeling fast

2.8. other

At work I’m using IntelliJ for Java development, but I’m not happy with the interface. It forces me out of my concentration and regularly breaks my flow by having stuff jump around and stealing focus.

But I cannot switch to something that works better for me, because there are features of IntelliJ that I require to work efficiently.

1 What I really need from IntelliJ

1.1 inspection

  • Where is this called? — all callers
  • Where is this implemented? Where is it declared? Or overridden?
  • Visual indicator whether a method is overridden or whether it overrides
  • Where is this defined (base method or concrete method)?

1.2 refactor

  • rename symbol,
  • change signature (with base method and overrides and callers),
  • extract method from selection,
  • extract variable / store selected expression in variable

1.3 run

  • Run tests in changed modules or in file
  • re-run test, restart current program
  • re-build incrementally
  • hot-swap without restart

1.4 debug

  • set breakpoint and see breakpoints, set conditional breakpoint
  • run project via eclipse run config main method (we replaced the eclipse stuff extracted with Eclipser by main methods)
  • inspect stack and state at break point
  • step over / in / out / continue

1.5 other

  • Jump to definition / caller (also with mouse CTRL-click), even for xml, so colleagues can do it when working at the same box
  • show all methods in file
  • VCS: ignore changes in some files
  • run Sonar Qube on changed files

2 What I deeply miss when not using Emacs

2.1 keyboard shortcuts

  • mnemnonic keybindings: When I type C-x r t, I thing x-rectacngle-text. That is why it works accross different keyboard layouts.
  • staying on the letter row

2.2 editing

  • killing to the end of the line with C-k (I actually added that to IntelliJ now)
  • cycling through the cut-paste list with M-y: Often I don’t need the last kill, but the one before. Yes, I can reach for the mouse and use klipper, but that slows me down and breaks my concentration. ——— C-S-v in IntelliJ uses paste from history
  • storing and retrieving multiple values with registers.
  • Completion which replaces the suffic, or at least M-d (Alt-d): kill world or rest of word. ——— You can remap Alt-d in IntelliJ to kill to word end
  • Activate selection mark, navigate, kill all code in-between mark and current point. The Emacs live plugin is close, but not good enough.

2.3 windows

  • Commands with M-x, fuzzy matched, and without settings-window-names getting in the way. I half-ways replace that with C-S-a
  • closing other windows with x1 (actual "x1" thanks to key-chords-mode). Deeper: Natural use of multiple windows.
  • storing a window configuration in a register and retrieving it later
  • Truly having two windows side-by-side with two points and switching with xo or xö (C-x o).

2.4 files

  • Fuzzy matching in buffer-list with bf (as chord or with C-x b).

2.5 interop

  • Linking to code files from my org-mode planning file.

2.6 movement

  • dumb-jump to test
  • Navigation with C-n / C-p / M-b / M-f. That avoids having to move to the arrow keys.
  • back to last edit which stays in the buffer. I can switch between buffers with bf, and after I just want to go back to where I last edited this buffer. Multi-file back-to-last-change is also nice (as IntelliJ provides it), but it’s not complete.

2.7 Feeling fast

  • Somehow all the things I need to do in IntelliJ feel slow. Maybe that’s because a million lines of code is a lot. Maybe because it keeps a huge amount of state. Or because Maven is slow. But it feels like I’m regularly waiting for something to refresh itself.
  • IntelliJ feels slow, because it often opens dialogs before they accept keyboard input. To reproduce: start a global search (with CTRL-shift-F) and start typing. It misses my first keystrokes. Emacs takes all keystrokes.

2.8 other

  • Having the shell just an M-! away, in the same folder as the code file.
  • ripgrep
  • A colleague said today “I wish we had tabs grouped by type”. I could not suppress saying “emacs does this — with tabbar-mode”.
  • Inline merge-conflict highlighting (I actually switch from IntelliJ to Emacs for that).
  • glasses-mode to highlight capital letters in camelCase.


Zitier keine Nazis

[2019-10-12 Sa 15:39] Atme kurz durch und frag dich: „was gibt es grade anderes wichtiges?“

Gerade habe ich gesehen, wie die Heute Show einen Rechtsextremen zitiert hat, weil dessen Satz so verlogen klang. Der Satz lässt sich allerdings auch als eine ironische Nachricht an seine Anhänger lesen.

Der Rechtsextreme hat also sehr geschickt eine Nachricht an seine Anhänger lanciert, die wieder mal durch alle Medien ging. Sie war damit ein riesiger Propaganda-Erfolg für den Rechtsextremen.

Daher möchte ich euch bitten: Zitiert keine Rechtsextremen. Sie sind propagandistisch besser als ihr. Wenn ihr wirklich über ihre Aussagen schreiben wollt, dann paraphrasiert sie. Damit vermeidet ihr zumindest, Botschaften weiterzugeben, die ihr nicht gesehen habt; z.B. weil sie Szenecodes verwenden.

Wenn ihr nicht die Zeit habt, ein Zitat vollständig zu analysieren und auseinanderzunehmen, dann vermeidet es.

Gebt lieber eine der vielen anderen wichtigen Neuigkeiten weiter.

Ein wichtiger Grund dafür ist, dass wir tendenziell dem zustimmen, das wir schon einmal gehört haben. Die Taz beschrieb das in einem Artikel über ein Experiment zum Glauben an Fake News: „Allgemein kann man sagen: Geschichten, die Menschen vertraut vorkommen, halten sie eher für wahr. Dieser Effekt ist unabhängig davon, ob man eher kritisch denkt oder nicht.“ (Quellartikel: Pennycook and Rand

Also: Bitte zitiert keine Rechtsextremen und gebt ihre Nachrichten nicht weiter; auch nicht ironisch, und erst Recht nicht, wenn ihr euch gerade über sie aufregt. Damit stärkt ihr sie.

Gebt lieber eine andere Neuigkeit weiter.

Atme kurz durch und frag dich: „was gibt es grade anderes wichtiges?“


Immutable function arguments and variables

[2019-07-16 Di 21:42] 1 Dev A: “Fortran is totally outdated.”

2 Dev B: “I wish we could declare objects in function arguments or variable values as immutable in Java and Javascript.”

Fortran developer silently wheeps:

! immutable 2D array as argument in Fortran integer, intent(in) :: arg(:,:) ! constant value character(len=10), parameter :: numbers = "0123456789"

See parameter vs. intent(in).

(yes, I’m currently reading a Javascript book)


If one dozen people will stop eating beef, how much will this help to slow down global warming?

[2019-06-30 So 20:51] If one dozen people will stop eating beef, this will reduce the yearly global CO₂ emissions by around 48 tons CO₂-equivalent1 (about one quarter of their total emissions, and half their emissions from food).

That’s the equivalent of planting about 48 trees per year, with the assumption of an old tree weighting 1 tonne, half of which is carbon. CO₂ mass is carbon mass times (44 / 12), but an average tree in a forest has less than that, because they don’t start as old trees, so you get roughly 1 ton of net CO₂ absorption from one newly planted tree.

So if you assume that the one dozen people will still live for 50 years without eating beef, they will have done as much good for the climate as if they had planted 2,400 trees. That’s roughly a forest with a size of 5 hectar (assuming 50,000 trees per km²).

1 For beef part of this CO₂-equivalent is due to methane which has a lifespan of only around 10 years, so the actual improvement isn’t as long-lasting as actually planting a forest: You won’t see much of the methane-reduction after 200 years, but the forest will still hold carbon. So please plant trees. ↩


Equality and Prosperity go hand in hand

[2019-06-17 Mo 21:15] A reply to the common argument for inequality:

Much better to focus on growing the economy than on increasing equality.

This is the old trickle down theory. Homeless people in the US could tell you that it does not work.

It’s also going against research results, because even the IMF has accepted that equality and prosperity aren’t opposites but rather go hand in hand: The higher the equality, the more sustained growth a country experiences (PDF). "Against this background, the question is whether a systematic look at the data supports the notion that societies with more equal income distributions have more durable growth."

"a 10 percentile decrease in inequality (represented by a change in the Gini coefficient from 40 to

increases the expected length of a growth spell by 50 percent."

They show that the income distribution is the largest single governing factor for the length of a growth period.

Also the Soviet Union had a higher Gini coefficient than the US.

That’s a nice way to counter the cry of the ghost of evil communists which is brought up most times someone talks about increasing equality.

No, we do not threaten our prosperity with higher equality. The opposite is true. And we also don’t follow the path of the Soviet Union. The opposite is true.

If all else is equal, higher equality and higher prosperity go hand in hand.


Rezo hat Recht

[2019-05-22 Mi 21:49] Eine Woche lang habe ich aufgrund seines Titels vermieden, das Video von Rezo zu schauen. Das war falsch, und ich hoffe, ihr macht nicht den gleichen Fehler. Denn es ist fundiert, gut gemacht und wichtig. Bei den Themen, mit denen ich mich auskenne, hat Rezo im Rahmen der Genauigkeit seines Videos Recht.

Das ist nicht nur eine Meinung. Ich sage das mit einem Doktortitel in Physik, den ich für meine Doktorarbeit über die Berechnung des Kohlendioxid-Austausches von Biosphäre und Ozeanen bekommen habe.

Rezo braucht das zwar eigentlich nicht als Bestätigung, weil er schon die Scientists for Future zu Wort kommen ließ. Allerdings habe ich sein Video nur gesehen, weil es vom Volksverpetzer besprochen wurde. Wenn ich also diese Rolle für Dich übernehmen kann, dann tue ich das gerne.

Bitte schau dir das Video an und gib es weiter.

Und ja, Eltern und Großeltern ist nichts wichtiger, als sicherzustellen, dass ihre Kinder und Enkel in einer sicheren Welt leben und kein beschissenes Leben haben. Schau das Video. Gib es weiter.


power and blindness: the tragedy behind systemd

[2019-04-23 Di 16:10] → comment to The Tragedy of systemd where Benno Rice said that he’s impressed by the way how systemd was spread into most GNU/Linux distributions and that systemd was a source of ideas for BSD.

Looking at the methods used to force distributions to adopt systemd, i.e. by adding hard dependencies in the biggest desktop environment or by bundling udev and continuously tightening the dependency from udev on systemd, that’s a form of power-play against the distributions. A dependency I really don’t want. One group decided that they wanted to force everyone else to buy into their new system. And then they used every leverage they could get to do that.

SystemD developers decided to become the one group that can dictate conditions on everyone else.

I can see the skill in that power-play, and be impressed by the skill, but seeing how that power is used and what methods are used, I am also horrified by what they did and how they will continue to abuse that power they now grabbed.

About the source of ideas: systemd contains quite a few ideas that come straight from the Hurd, but have worse implementations in systemd. Systemd solves problems by tacking things onto Linux — problems that have been solved in the Hurd in a clean way 15 years ago. For good ideas, don’t repeat the mistake of ignoring the Hurd. Instead first look at the clean implementation and take care to put functionality at the right level.

In hindsight, SystemD is the consequence of ignoring that the Hurd solves real problems. Of ignoring the technical advantages of the Hurd.


Plan B gegen Zensur

[2019-04-12 Fr 18:55] Kommentar zu „dann ist die Meinungsmacht zu groß“ von Le Floid.

Dass die jetzt Youtube zensieren wollen, war zu erwarten. Wir haben ihnen die Macht dazu gegeben, als wir uns alle auf zentralen Plattformen versammelt haben. Aber warum seid ihr noch nicht alle zumindest auch in dezentralen Systemen? Warum finde ich eure selbstgeschaffenen Videos nicht im Freenet Projekt? Zumindest als zusätzlichen Zugang?

Gut, ich weiß, dass Geld zu verdienen auf eigenen Seiten viel schwerer ist als auf den größten Plattformen und viel zu viele unterschiedliche Fähigkeiten gleichzeitig fordert, und ja, wir wurden in die Plattformen gedrängt und die Infrastruktur im Netz wurde so entwickelt wie die Riester-Rente: Die, die mitmachen, sind die Verarschten und die, die nicht mitmachen, verlieren noch mehr (beim Internet, weil sie außen vor sind).

Und ja, die großen Plattformen haben viel mehr Annehmlichkeiten und man kann leichter Geld verdienen, usw. — goldene Käfige eben, die manchmal nötig sind, um überhaupt über die Runden zu kommen — aber verdammt, wenn wenigstens die meisten einen Plan B am Laufen hätten, wären wir so viel weiter.

Insofern: Mein Plan B ist das Freenet Projekt. Vielleicht gibt es ja ein paar Leute, die anfangen, ihre Videos da hochzuladen. Und sei es nur, um auch einen Plan B zu haben — um auch dann noch da zu sein, wenn unsere Regierung völlig durchdreht. Insofern: schaut bitte vorbei!


Vielleicht reicht die Zeit ja noch. Immerhin hat es auch 15 Jahre gedauert, bis meine Vorhersage zur Zensur von Streamingplattformen eingetroffen ist ("die kommt, sobald die nichtkommerziellen peer-to-peer-Netze unbedeutend geworden sind, weil kommerzielle Streamingplattformen so viel leichter zu nutzen sind").

Das ist die andere Seite des Tale of Foxes and Freedom: Die Abhängigkeiten, in die wir uns treiben lassen, sei es über Infrastruktur oder über zentrale Moderation oder auch über Finanzierungsstrukturen, sind die goldenen Ketten, durch die wir Stück für Stück den Klang wirklicher Freiheit vergessen.

Mit dem ersten Glied ist die Kette geschmiedet. Wenn die erste Rede zensiert, der erste Gedanke verboten, die erste Freiheit verweigert wird, sind wir alle unwiderruflich gefesselt. — Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

Einen Weg aus den goldenen Ketten findet ihr über das Freenet Projekt, von einem non-profit entwickelte Freie Software, mit der ein Kommunikationsnetz ohne zentrale Kontrolle aber mit einfachst möglicher Veröffentlichung geschaffen wird:


Nutzt es bitte, und sei es nur als Plan B.


(es gibt übrigens auch noch meine ganz alte Seite)

Autor: ArneBab

Created: 2020-02-18 Di 00:29

Emacs 24.5.1 (Org mode 8.2.6), design built on https://ogbe.net/