What’s up today? (Part 1)


This isn’t your grandpa’s conspiracy theory, but you’re welcome in advance. Luckily, it’s not one of those things that’s going to drag on. There is a rough deadline for it.

I agree that most of us here are truth-seeking patriots trying to make the world better. We each bring different things to the table. My technical ability to contribute to SAFE at this stage is limited. I notice a few areas where I can contribute my knowledgebases here and there, but it seems like waiting patiently and talking to others about SAFE is the extent of what many can offer for the moment. My only consistent contribution, beside my sometimes-funny memes, insider-only one-liners and :poop:coin minimalism, is offering bits and pieces of interesting content that I find which have varying levels of relevance to a future decentralized network. Few people read as much and as widely as I do, so I can’t really expect people to recognize all of the connections that I see. Most people here understand the potential and vision of SAFE. That said, what I can offer is a bit of how much more important SAFE really is, both in terms of the future potential but also in terms of just how really corrupt what we have now is. People have no idea. Neither did I years ago, but maybe ignorance is bliss in this case.

1 Like

there is only one Conspiracy Theory I like to pick on the so called intelligent guys… it´s the moon landing… it is so amusing to play with that! But really conspiracy theories like Chem Trails is so dumb… hahaha

NASA was always a slush fund, Buzz. Space Force!


People conspire, in private, and align interests and plans to pursue the outcomes that benefit them. Simple.

The term “conspiracy theory” gets used a rhetorical tool that can and is used to dismiss rational inquiry. While at uni as a mature age student 10 years ago I talked of mass scale propaganda machines and a complex network of individuals and organisations pursuing agendas. I was labeled and dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist” by many people, fellow students and lecturers. I did however get the opportunity to get validation from some of my Professors, albeit in private. I later worked as an investigative journalist in PNG, there was conspiracies, AUSTrade, ASIO, PNG politicians, mining companies, fishing companies, Chinese gov and the IMF. It happens, more than most people want realise, but being able to get to reasonable and logical conclusions is hard, there are frequently gaps in data, sources that are unobtainable, sometimes sources that end up “missing”, or when you finally get your hands on offical document, elements are redacted.

You look at things like https://littlesis.org/ and infer from the relationships between people and entities some hypothesis to test and validate through primary and secondary research, and rigorous data analysis. Use the model of the Military-Industrial Complex, applied to Big Pharma, Healthcare, IT etc etc. It is a rabbit hole no doubt and there is an underlying neurochemical mechanism that gets many people “hooked”. Wild assumptions get made that fuel the neurochemically facilitated habit/behaviour further.

Ease of access to web publishing tools, add ideologically based (personal)data-driven multivariate tested presentation of digital content to shape public perception and it becomes evident that is easier to maintain complex conspiracies than it was several decades ago. Division ensues, the tribalism you refer to @Nigel.

To come to logical conclusions and problem definitions it all takes time, a methodology and focus on hypothesis testing. Some people as autodidacts can learn these approaches themselves, most need some structured training/education. An approach and endeavour many looking for “truth” are unwilling to pursue. The need for delayed gratification is also intolerable. Besides, there are more exciting and personally meaningful things in life to devote energy to. Majority of people think and pursue goals in reference to days, weeks, months and years. A minority will do this in reference to decades and their lifetime. Even smaller amount of people in timescales that are inter-generational.

In the context of SAFE, what I realised around 2009 was these (perceived) to be detrimental and unethical power relationships that are emergent properties of the complex system we call civilisation are now very much pivotal on personal data. This did draw me to this project and provided the network performs as intended we will be able to shift some of this.

People will always conspire. Outsiders to this will always make assumptions about intent, plans and effects. But some of the nefarious things we may understand to be currently present, or that have/are happening which @anon63178599 was alluding can be mitigated by SAFE. This is exciting and why I am more focused on the solution(s) than the problem(s).


A couple of posts of this topic are moved to the new off-topic thread: https://safenetforum.org/t/discussion-about-qanon-trump-etc/26622?u=draw, because the following from this forum Guidelines:

Religious, political, and other “prone to huge arguments” topics are only allowed in the Off-Topic category.


There are some critics however. Like Linus Torvalds, but I don’t think he is a big specialist in this topic. But of course better to be on the safe side if possible.

1 Like

Indeed, I do however always try to remind myself of how often the impossible has been achieved.
Time will tell!

1 Like

@draw That was a good article by By Mikhail Dyakonov and well worth the read.

And how often in theoretical physics an avenue of research proves to be unfruitful. Steady State Universe or String theory that has no results after decades. My view is that they will find uses for the machines that they have developed that can do some stuff (occasionally) and make some sort of hybrid system that can perform some functions faster than a traditional digital computer (rather like analogue computers used to be able to do) and might even be able to be used for some modelling of quanta. In other words we will see some benefits but not on the scale that was promised by the media and in funding proposals.

Well 3 decades have shown that the required time frame has been grossly understated at every turn.

1 Like

Well, I encountered that article a couple of weeks ago on Slashdot (article of @Josh is there also mentioned). Because I don’t want to overdo the copy pasting of articles from there, I didn’t post it then. Also it seems to be more of an opinion of the guy that quantum computing is not possible/very far in the future.
And like you say: what form of quantum computing will eventually be delivered.
Instead of string theory, I was thinking about Nuclear fusion. That certainly takes its time to develop.


Not much to read, but Maidsafe are mentioned.


At least we know that works. We have plenty of examples to aspire to. And the outcome will more than compensate for all the efforts/cost put into it. But quantum computers as promised is not a certainty and unlike traditional computing the purposes/algorithms will be more like it was with analogue computers. You program the hardware for certain functionality and it’ll do it. Analogue computers had (semi) infinitely variable parameters and didn’t run the program as a digital step by step process. Quantum computers will have (semi) infinite parameters and semi digital step by step process.

1 Like

That sounds l33t though, a security consultant that hacks with a ballpen deserves respect…


In virtually all cases when I hear this phrase used it’s referring to something that would be so outrageously impossible to pull off that even stooping down to debating it is mentally damaging. “Truth seekers” are more often than not just thrill seekers, as @Nigel so aptly described.

For example, the Moon landings. Let’s ignore the sheer amount of independent evidence and focus instead on the people who were involved in it at a number of different levels. If you live in the US, chances are you know a few people who had an aunt or uncle working on the thing. How would the government manage to silence all of them? The same goes for chemtrails, by the way. Half the country should be in on the conspiracy to pull off something at that scale, not to mention the rest of the world…

Now, if you can show evidence to something extraordinary (or evidence that something is being actively hidden) and there’s no compelling counter evidence, there’s good reason to start an investigation. However, I tend to believe (for the reasons I outlined above) that in most cases when we seem to discover some large scale operation it’s just our brain (so eager to find patterns everywhere) playing tricks on us and, in reality, it’s just a few crooked people pulling a few strings to make a few millions for themselves.


This sounds like a fitting description of any government worldwide.

Wait a minute!


Just because governments are made up of crooks it doesn’t mean they can pull off large scale conspiracies. For one, crooked people tend to be paranoid (for good reason: they surround themselves with other crooks) and that results in distrust and falling out.

1 Like

This I agree with. Many of the “conspiracies” just couldn’t be carried out due to the sheer grandiosity of such operations and the lack of control over the parties involved. (Or we’re worse psychologists than we believe.) On the other hand, I would wager there is a certain albeit small percentage of cases where even the most deranged and schizoid paranoiacs are actually onto something.

I also support not trusting and always questioning mainstream media (which are mostly owned by oligarchs these days anyway). The line is thin though and when it leads to pretend thinking and tin foil millinery, it’s probably better to be put on than put away.

1 Like

That doesn’t actually matter. It’s impossible to identify the real positives in the presence of that many false positives.

Study the subject inside-out and convince me you truly understand it. Collect evidence, and I mean real evidence, not some bullshit out-of-context misinterpretation of something you have no idea about, as usual in conspiracy theorist circles. Then, and only then, publish it. Be ready to answer all questions because your piece will be taken apart and scrutinized, as it should be. At the first sign that a “theory” is less thorough than this, I’ll freely dismiss it as just another bullshit conspiracy theory, and I’ll be right to do so.

It does matter. Because that slight possibility is precisely what calls for the latter part, to scrutinize anything at all. If it’s all bullshit by nature, why even bother to approach it in any rational manner.

Put under the sort of scrutiny and having to meet the credibility demands you’ve just outlined, most journalist would starve to death, no matter if they write for Washington Post or Truth For All Today! or Free the People Now!