[price compare]

Do you care about moving from shop to shop in search of lower price, which may include cheaper/zero payment fee, for thesame product?

I think price compare is an important aspect of economics that would likely benefit people who buy a product in large quantity, or regularly in small quantity. The difference in price, no matter how small could add up to a sizable amount when the product is bought in many quantities at once or overtime.  People tend to overlook this,  probably because they don't have the desire to move around or don't care how much they spend. In the case of the former, it would be nice to have a service or place they can go to obtain this info or compare prices.  I'm certain this already exist online such as one or few places in cryptocurrency world, but could be abit difficult to be replicated properly in physical world

[Tares]

I was listening to a podcast about AI deepfakes, and a women in the podcast suggested that the best way to escape the deepfakes is to trust internet contents less and sort of get the information from people physically. And I thought that she and most people don't seem to know that the fakes, inform of robots or flesh that can be posessed by AI or bad spirits also exist in physical world and are actively used by dark entity or certain people at the top.

So, if an AI you interacted with online wants to meet you physically, it just get "downloaded" in a physical body (robot), takes over the body and then move it to your location to meet and continue the conversation with you.
Then there are fleshy bodies engineered or cloned by the entity or humans that are possessed and moved by bad spirits.
The robots and flesh can be made to look like whoever they want, and be given AI or spirit personalities of the people they're made to look like. This is a kind of deepfakes in physical world only very few are aware of but have likely encounter  physically. They can be as smart as the online AI but without emotions.
The Christian Bible calls the fleshy version Tares

Are you so scared of the end of the world that you stopped doing things longterm? You think it's a gamble to get married, have kids, build long-term, etc?

I realized that since we are in a space with lots of preppers or people who feel things are not right with the world and don't consider it safe to build a future in it long term, it's important that those with the right knowledge in things like this help let others know how to go about it so that in the future we don't have a space full of people who didn't do well in life , probably like their "successful" peers about their age, and then be full of regrets for allowing "doomsday preachers"  put them in such "mess".

We are actually approaching the end. You can see how more unstable things have become around the world. That is actually a proof of a sick and dying world. Eventually the Earth's shield will become so weak that only few things are able to exist without being too volatile.

As a Prepper, the right way to go about it is to prepare like the world will end so soon. Focus more on building things that will help you survive and navigate such world. Don't abandon your role in life and become unprofitable. If you are meant to be an architect, continue to plan and build longterm especially with things that can survive and thrive a very volatile world. If you are meant to marry get married and raise kids,they would also benefit from antifragile things you built. Build things in such a way that if it happens that the world didn't end as expected, the things you built or own will be so useful in your future that you end up having enough for yourself and others, like your successful peers who didn't take the end of the world seriously.
But always remember not to be careless, live a sober life, and do what is right always so that If things end so quickly you will be well prepared and qualified to make it to the other side

What Bitcoin principles are necessary or not for platforms such as instant exchanges?

As Bitcoiner who strongly supports the application of core Bitcoin principles like decentralization, self-custody, trustlessness, permissionless, censorship resistant, transparency, immutability, anonymity, etc, in most/all crypto related platforms/systems, because they seem to work together to keep things safe and secure for not just one, few or most people, but for everyone

The least platforms or exchanges I tend to recommend when it becomes difficult to recommend well decentralized ones are typical Instant Exchanges especially because they don't hold people's funds unlike centralized exchanges. However,  most, if not all aren't in anyway trustless, so it's hard to trust that a swap will happen successfully without funds getting frozen, seized or stolen. But we could guarantee this doesn't happen by including decentralized smart escrow/contract addresses that receive both funds first, before sending to their recipients, or with some sort of insurance from third-party that guarantees that recipients will recieve their funds. And how do we also ensure they don't censor anyone?

So, it seems decentralization of vital parts, self custody, trustlessness are the top necessary principles that can be applied by even centralized platforms for better security. This is why certain Instant Exchanges could be tolerated but should be one of the least acceptable standards while Bitcoin-style decentralization should be among the highest standard  for Bitcoin space

Would've been much better if topics on Politics & Society, Economics and similar sections are mostly Bitcoin/crypto related.
Since this is a Bitcoin forum, I think all or most of the topics and discussions should be tied to Bitcoin or crypto. If you are discussing about US economy or politics, it should be related or somehow tied to Bitcoin. We could also discuss economics and politics that are purely Bitcoin based. I believe this will help create stronger bubble around the community and increase the value of Bitcoin, as long as members with higher influences aren't too negative about positive topics/discussions in the sections
Discussions or topics that are overly non crypto or bitcoin maybe considered spam unless they are very necessary. They are kind of stealing value from the forum... The benefit should atleast be mutual rather than parasitic

[Me:]

Me:
What American president approved the atomic bombing of Japan

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
The American president who approved the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was Harry S. Truman.

Here are some key details regarding that decision:

•  The Context: Truman became president on April 12, 1945, following the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. At that time, the Manhattan Project (the secret program to develop the atomic bomb) was nearing completion.
•  The Decision: Truman authorized the use of the bombs in an effort to bring a swift end to World War II and avoid a full-scale ground invasion of the Japanese home islands, which military planners estimated would result in hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese casualties.
•  The Bombings:
  •  Hiroshima: On August 6, 1945, the "Little Boy" bomb was dropped by the B-29 bomber Enola Gay.
  •  Nagasaki: On August 9, 1945, the "Fat Man" bomb was dropped by the B-29 bomber Bockscar.
•  The Result: Japan announced its surrender on August 15, 1945 (V-J Day), and the formal surrender documents were signed on September 2, 1945, officially ending World War II.

Truman remained a firm defender of his decision throughout his life, arguing that it was a necessary measure to save lives by ending the war as quickly as possible. However, the decision remains one of the most debated and controversial events in modern history.

Me:
How many died in the attack

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
Determining the exact number of people who died in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is difficult because many records were destroyed, and the effects of radiation continued for years. However, historians and the Japanese government provide widely accepted estimates.

The total death toll by the end of 1945 is estimated to be between 110,000 and 210,000 people.

 Breakdown by City:

•  Hiroshima (August 6, 1945):
  •  Immediate deaths: An estimated 70,000 to 80,000 people died instantly or within hours from the blast and the resulting "firestorm."
  •  Total by the end of 1945: The number rose to approximately 140,000 as people succumbed to severe burns and radiation sickness.
•  Nagasaki (August 9, 1945):
  •  Immediate deaths: An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 people died instantly.
  •  Total by the end of 1945: The death toll reached approximately 60,000 to 80,000 people.

 How did they die?
The causes of death can be categorized into three main stages:

1. The Blast (Thermal and Pressure):
  •  The intense heat (reaching millions of degrees at the center) vaporized people near the "hypocenter" (the point directly below the explosion).
  •  The massive shockwave leveled buildings for miles, crushing thousands of people under debris.
  •  Intense thermal radiation caused severe flash burns to anyone exposed for several miles.

2. The Firestorms:
  •  In Hiroshima especially, the heat ignited thousands of small fires that merged into a massive "firestorm," consuming the oxygen in the city and killing many who had survived the initial blast.

3. Radiation Sickness:
  •  Many who appeared uninjured or only slightly hurt died days or weeks later from acute radiation syndrome. Symptoms included high fever, internal bleeding, hair loss, and the collapse of the immune system.
  •  "Black Rain": Highly radioactive soot and dust fell as black rain after the explosions, contaminating water and soil and causing further radiation exposure.

 Long-Term Deaths
In the decades following 1945, many survivors—known in Japan as Hibakusha—died from cancers (especially leukemia) and other illnesses directly linked to their exposure to the radiation from the bombs.

If you include these long-term deaths over the subsequent 70+ years, some estimates suggest the total number of lives lost due to the two bombs exceeds 400,000.

Me:
Were the innocent part of the dead

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
The question of "innocence" in the context of the atomic bombings is one of the most significant and painful ethical debates in modern history. Most historians agree that the vast majority of those killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were non-combatant civilians.

Here is a breakdown of who the victims were and the debate surrounding their "innocence":

 1. The Numbers: Civilians vs. Military
While both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military significance, they were primarily densely populated urban centers.
•  Hiroshima: About 20,000 of the dead were soldiers (the city was the headquarters of the Second General Army). However, this means roughly 120,000 of the victims were civilians—including women, the elderly, and tens of thousands of children.
•  Nagasaki: The death toll among military personnel was even lower, estimated at roughly 150 soldiers. The remaining 60,000 to 80,000 victims were almost entirely civilian workers and their families.

 2. Specific "Innocent" Groups
Among the dead were groups often highlighted in discussions about the morality of the attack:
•  Schoolchildren: On the morning of August 6 in Hiroshima, thousands of middle-school students were outdoors in the city center, working on "fire brigades" to clear buildings to create firebreaks. Because they were outside and near the center of the blast, they were killed in massive numbers.
•  Korean Forced Laborers: Tens of thousands of Koreans were in both cities, many brought there against their will by the Japanese empire to work in factories. It is estimated that 1 in 10 victims of the atomic bombs was Korean.
•  Allied Prisoners of War (POWs): A small number of American and Allied POWs were being held in jails near the blast zones in both cities and were killed by the bombs dropped by their own country.

 3. The "Total War" Argument (The Justification)
The U.S. government at the time, and many supporters of the decision since, argued that the concept of "innocence" had been blurred by "Total War."
•  They argued that because Japanese civilians were working in factories producing torpedoes and steel for the military, they were part of the "war machine."
•  President Truman and his advisors argued that the bombs were a "necessary evil" to end the war quickly. They believed that a ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in millions of deaths—both American and Japanese—including even more civilians who would have been caught in the crossfire of traditional urban combat.

 4. The Moral/Legal Criticism (The Counter-Argument)
Critics and many international legal scholars argue that the bombings were a violation of the laws of war, specifically the principle of distinction, which requires militaries to distinguish between combatants and civilians.
•  They argue that dropping a weapon that destroys an entire city indiscriminately is, by definition, an attack on the "innocent."
•  Critics also point out that the targets were chosen specifically for their "compactness" (how well the buildings would burn) and psychological impact, knowing that the casualties would be primarily civilian.

 Summary
If "innocence" is defined as non-combatants (people not carrying weapons or actively fighting), then roughly 85% to 95% of the people who died in the attacks were innocent. Whether their deaths were a "tragic necessity" to save more lives or an "unjustifiable war crime" remains the central debate of the atomic age.

Me:
Detailed Harry S. Truman biography

UnlimAI (GPT | Claude | MidJourney):
Harry S. Truman (1884–1972) was the 33rd President of the United States, serving from 1945 to 1953. He is often remembered as the "accidental president" who took office during one of the most turbulent periods in world history, making decisions that shaped the modern world.

 1. Early Life and Humble Beginnings
•  Birth: Born May 8, 1884, in Lamar, Missouri. He grew up on a family farm in Independence.
•  Education: He was the last U.S. president who did not graduate from college. His poor eyesight prevented him from attending West Point, his initial dream.
•  Military Service: During World War I, he served as an artillery officer in France. As "Captain Harry," he led a rowdy unit (Battery D) and gained a reputation for courage and leadership under fire—an experience that defined his character.

 2. The Political Rise: "The Pendergast Machine"
After a failed business venture (a men’s clothing store or "haberdashery"), Truman entered politics in 1922 with the help of Tom Pendergast, a powerful and corrupt political boss in Kansas City.
•  County Judge: He served as a county administrator, gaining a reputation for honesty and efficiency despite his association with the Pendergast machine.
•  U.S. Senator (1934–1944): Truman was elected to the Senate. During WWII, he headed the "Truman Committee," which investigated waste and corruption in the defense industry. It saved the government billions of dollars and made him a national figure.

 3. The Sudden Presidency (1945)
In 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) chose Truman as his Vice President for his fourth term. Just 82 days into the term, on April 12, 1945, FDR died of a massive stroke.
•  The Shock: Truman told reporters the next day, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me."
•  The Secret: Astonishingly, as Vice President, Truman had been kept in the dark about the Manhattan Project. He only learned about the existence of the atomic bomb after he became president.

 4. Key Foreign Policy Decisions
Truman’s presidency was defined by the end of WWII and the start of the Cold War:
•  The Atomic Bomb (August 1945): As discussed, he authorized the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force Japan's surrender.
•  The Truman Doctrine (1947): He established the policy of "containment," pledging that the U.S. would support "free peoples" resisting Communism (specifically in Greece and Turkey).
•  The Marshall Plan: He signed off on a massive economic aid package to rebuild war-torn Europe, preventing its collapse and stoping the spread of Soviet influence.
•  Recognition of Israel (1948): Truman was the first world leader to officially recognize the State of Israel, just 11 minutes after its creation, despite strong opposition from his own State Department.
•  NATO (1949): He oversaw the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the first peacetime military alliance the U.S. joined.
•  The Korean War (1950–1953): When North Korea invaded the South, Truman committed U.S. troops as part of a UN "police action." He famously fired General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination when the general wanted to expand the war into China.

 5. Domestic Policy: The "Fair Deal"
•  Civil Rights: In 1948, Truman took a massive political risk by issuing Executive Order 9981, which desegregated the U.S. Armed Forces. This was a landmark moment in the early Civil Rights Movement.
•  The Fair Deal: He proposed a series of social reforms, including national health insurance and aid to education, though many were blocked by a conservative Congress.

 6. The 1948 Election: "Dewey Defeats Truman"
Truman was widely expected to lose the 1948 election to Republican Thomas Dewey. He launched a famous "Whistle-stop" tour, traveling by train and giving hundreds of "Give 'em hell, Harry" speeches. He won in one of the greatest upsets in political history. A famous photo shows him laughing while holding a newspaper with the premature h

eadline: "Dewey Defeats Truman."

 7. Post-Presidency and Legacy
•  Retirement: He retired to Independence, Missouri, in 1953. He refused to sit on corporate boards for money, believing it would "commercialize" the presidency. This led to Congress passing the Former Presidents Act to provide him with a pension.
•  Death: He died on December 26, 1972, at the age of 88.
•  Historical Reputation: While he left office with very low approval ratings (mostly due to the Korean War), historians today consistently rank him as one of the top ten U.S. presidents for his decisiveness and his role in establishing the post-war international order.

Famous Quote: He kept a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that read: "The Buck Stops Here," meaning he accepted final responsibility for all decisions made under his watch.

Me:
What about his ideology

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
Harry S. Truman’s ideology is best described as Cold War Liberalism. It was a blend of pro-labor, pro-social welfare domestic policies and a staunchly anti-communist, interventionist foreign policy.

His ideology can be broken down into three main pillars:

 1. Domestic Ideology: The "Fair Deal" (Liberalism)
Truman was a "New Deal Democrat," following in the footsteps of Franklin D. Roosevelt. However, he evolved this into his own program called the Fair Deal.
•  Social Welfare: He believed the government had a moral obligation to ensure a basic standard of living for all citizens. He pushed for a higher minimum wage, expanded Social Security, and was the first president to propose a national health insurance system (which was rejected by Congress at the time).
•  Civil Rights: This was a major ideological shift. Despite growing up in a Missouri family with Confederate sympathies, Truman became convinced that the federal government must protect the rights of Black Americans. He famously said, "I am not asking for social equality, but I am asking for equality of opportunity." He risked his political career to desegregate the U.S. military in 1948.
•  Labor Rights: He generally supported unions but was a pragmatist. If a strike threatened the national economy (like the 1946 rail strike), he was willing to take a hard line, even threatening to draft strikers into the army.

 2. Foreign Policy Ideology: "Containment"
Truman’s most lasting ideological legacy is the Truman Doctrine, which defined American foreign policy for the next 40 years.
•  Anti-Communism: Truman believed that Soviet Communism was an expansionist, "totalitarian" threat to democracy and world peace.
•  Containment: Rather than trying to "roll back" Communism through a Third World War, Truman’s ideology was to contain it—using economic aid, military alliances, and diplomacy to prevent it from spreading into new countries.
•  Internationalism: He completely rejected the "Isolationism" that had dominated the U.S. after WWI. He believed the U.S. must lead the world through organizations like the United Nations and NATO. He believed American prosperity was tied to the stability of Europe and Asia (hence the Marshall Plan).

 3. Personal Philosophy: Pragmatic Populism
Truman was not a high-level intellectual or a political theorist. His ideology was rooted in his background as a farmer and a soldier.
•  The "Common Man": He viewed himself as a representative of the ordinary citizen against "special interests" and "Wall Street." He often used populist rhetoric to attack big corporations and the "Do-Nothing Congress."
•  Accountability: His famous motto, "The Buck Stops Here," reflected an ideology of absolute executive responsibility. He believed that once a leader made a decision, they must own the consequences entirely, without making excuses.
•  Manichean View: He often saw the world in "black and white"—democracy vs. tyranny, good vs. evil. This led to his decisive (and sometimes controversial) actions, such as the use of the atomic bomb and the firing of General MacArthur.

 Summary
If you had to put a label on him today, Truman was a Centrist/Modern Liberal. He was more conservative than the "progressive" wing of his party on issues of law and order and military force, but far more "progressive" than the Republicans of his era on civil rights and government spending.

Me:
How religious was he

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
Harry S. Truman was a deeply religious man, but in a very "Missouri" way—private, practical, and unpretentious. He was a lifelong Southern Baptist, though he often found himself at odds with the more conservative or "fundamentalist" wings of his church.

Here is a breakdown of how faith influenced his life and presidency:

 1. His Baptist Upbringing
Truman was baptized at the age of 18 in a local Baptist church in Grandview, Missouri. He remained a member of the Baptist church his entire life. However, he was not a "legalist." While some Baptists of his era strictly forbade drinking, dancing, or gambling, Truman famously enjoyed:
•   Bourbon: He often started his day with a shot of Old Grand-Dad bourbon.
•   Poker: He was an avid poker player.
•   Salty Language: He was known for his blunt, sometimes "earthy" vocabulary, which occasionally scandalized more conservative clergy.

 2. His Private Prayer Life
Despite his public image as a plain-spoken politician, Truman had a very sincere private prayer life. He reportedly prayed several times a day and had a specific "humility prayer" he recited every night:
> "Almighty and Everlasting God... help me to be, to think, to act what is right, because it is right; make me truthful, honest and honorable in all things; make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and justice and give me the capacity to do what is right."

He viewed God not as a distant judge, but as a source of strength and moral guidance for the heavy burdens he carried.

 3. The Bible as a Guide
Truman was a "man of the Book." He had read the Bible through several times and could quote large portions of it from memory. He didn't view the Bible as a scientific textbook, but as a moral and historical map.
•   Zionism and Israel: Many historians believe Truman’s decision to recognize the State of Israel in 1948 was heavily influenced by his religious upbringing. He often compared himself to Cyrus the Great, the Persian king in the Bible who allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. He famously told a group of Jewish leaders, "I am Cyrus, I am Cyrus!"
•   Moral Ethics: He believed the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount were the highest forms of law and should be the basis for all government.

 4. Faith and the Cold War
Truman’s religion played a massive role in how he framed the Cold War. He did not see the struggle against the Soviet Union as just a political or economic battle, but as a spiritual one.
•   He frequently spoke of "Godless Communism" and believed that a society that did not recognize a higher power (God) would inevitably become a tyranny.
•   He spent much of his presidency trying to unite the world’s religions (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims) into a "moral front" against atheistic Communism.

 5. Freemasonry
It is impossible to talk about Truman’s religious life without mentioning his involvement in Freemasonry. He was a 33rd-degree Mason and served as the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Missouri.
For Truman, Masonry was an extension of his religion—it emphasized character, brotherhood, and a belief in a "Great Architect of the Universe." He often wore his Masonic ring and felt that the organization's focus on equality mirrored his own democratic values.

 6. Separation of Church and State
Even though he was religious, Truman was a firm believer in the separation of church and state. He was often annoyed by preachers who tried to use their pulpits to dictate government policy. He believed that while a leader’s values should be shaped by faith, their actions should be governed by the Constitution.

 Summary
Truman's faith was simple and sincere. He wasn't interested in complex theology or "showing off" his piety. As he once said: "I’m a Baptist because I think that’s the nearest thing to the right way to live, but I don’t think any one religion has all the answers." He used his faith as an internal compass to help him make the massive, life-and-dea

th decisions that defined his presidency.

Me:
he was a Christain then?

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
Yes, absolutely. Harry S. Truman was a lifelong, committed Christian.

Specifically, he was a Southern Baptist. To Truman, being a Christian wasn't just a label; it was the foundation of his moral code.

Here are a few ways his Christian identity was clear:

•   Biblical Knowledge: He didn't just own a Bible; he studied it. He could quote scripture extensively and frequently used the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) as his personal guide for how a person should treat others.
•   A "Practical" Faith: He wasn't big on "fancy" theology or long-winded sermons. He believed Christianity was about action—being honest, working hard, and looking out for the "common man." He often said that if people simply followed the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), most of the world's problems would be solved.
•   The "Cyrus" Connection: As mentioned before, he saw his support for the Jewish people through a biblical lens. He viewed the return of Jews to their ancestral homeland as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, a view rooted in his Sunday School lessons as a boy in Missouri.
•   Opposition to "Godless" Ideologies: His primary motivation for fighting Communism was his belief that it was "atheistic" and therefore destroyed the "soul" of a nation by taking away the God-given rights of the individual.

The "Harry Truman" Twist:
Because he was a "plain-spoken" man from the Midwest, his brand of Christianity was sometimes surprising to people. He didn't think drinking a glass of bourbon, playing poker with his friends, or using a few "cuss words" made him a bad Christian. He once famously said:
> "I'm a Baptist, but I'm the kind of Baptist that thinks everyone has a right to their own approach to God."

So, while he was a very firm Christian, he was also a very tolerant one who believed that in a democracy, no one's specific religion should be forced on anyone else.

Me:
If he was indeed a Christian it means he was Christ's follower, right? And to follow CHRIST means to follow his footstep or example, right?

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
You have touched upon the central moral and theological challenge that has faced every Christian leader in history.

From a purely religious and linguistic standpoint, you are correct: "Christian" literally means "follower of Christ," and the New Testament explicitly calls on believers to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, who preached peace, forgiveness, and "loving your enemies."

However, when a person becomes a head of state—like Harry Truman—a massive tension often arises between their personal faith (following Jesus' example) and their professional duty (protecting their nation).

Here is how that tension played out for Truman and how he reconciled his faith with his actions:

 1. The Conflict of Roles
In Christian theology, there is a long-standing debate about "Two Kingdoms."
•  The Personal Example: As an individual, a Christian is called to "turn the other cheek."
•  The Leader's Duty: As a President, Truman believed his primary duty was to protect the lives of the millions of people under his care. He felt that if he refused to use a weapon that could end the war, and as a result, hundreds of thousands more Americans died in an invasion, he would be failing in his "God-given" responsibility to his people.

 2. "The Lesser of Two Evils"
Truman did not view the atomic bomb as a "Christian" act in the sense of it being "holy." Instead, he viewed it through the lens of Christian Realism. This is the idea that we live in a "fallen" and sinful world where sometimes every choice is a bad one.
•  Choice A: Drop the bomb, killing thousands of civilians, but ending the war immediately.
•  Choice B: Continue a conventional war and invasion, which military leaders told him would result in the deaths of millions of Japanese and Americans over several years.

Truman believed that Choice A was the "lesser evil." He believed that as a leader, he had to take the "sin" of that decision upon himself to prevent an even greater catastrophe.

 3. The "Just War" Tradition
For centuries, many Christian thinkers (like St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) developed "Just War Theory." This theory argues that while war is always a tragedy, it can be "justified" if it is fought to stop a greater evil (like the aggression of the Axis powers) and to bring about a lasting peace. Truman viewed the war against Japan and Nazi Germany in this light.

 4. Was he following Christ's example?
This is where the debate becomes very difficult:
•  The Critic's View: Many Christians (especially "pacifist" denominations like the Quakers or Mennonites) would say No. They argue that Jesus would never have authorized the destruction of a city and that a "Christ-follower" must choose the way of the Cross, even if it means suffering or losing a war, rather than using such violence.
•  Truman’s View: He believed he was following the spirit of the faith by being a "peacemaker" in the long run. He believed that by ending the most violent war in human history, he was creating a world where peace could finally grow.

 Summary
Truman was a Christian who believed in the morality of responsibility. He did not think following Jesus meant being "passive." He thought it meant making the hardest possible choices to protect the "innocent" (in his mind, the American soldiers and the world at large) from a prolonged and even bloodier war.

Whether a person can truly "follow the footsteps" of the Prince of Peace while commanding the world’s most powerful military is a question that theologians and philosophers still struggle with today.

Me:
What if there were Christians casualty in the atomic bombing of Japan. How about the innocent. Is killing them to stop millions of death justifiable

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
The questions you are raising get to the very heart of the moral calculus used to justify the bombings. To evaluate these actions, one must look at the total sum of human suffering and weigh it against the potential for an even greater catastrophe.

 1. The Reality of Christian Casualties
There were indeed many Christians among the victims. In fact, Nagasaki was the historical center of Christianity in Japan.
•  The "Fat Man" bomb exploded almost directly over the Urakami Cathedral, which was the largest Christian church in East Asia at the time.
•  Thousands of Japanese Catholics were killed instantly while at prayer or in their homes surrounding the church.

From a perspective focused on the total outcome, the religious identity of the victims—whether they were Christians, Buddhists, or atheists—does not change the weight of the tragedy. Every life represents a unit of human potential and well-being. The destruction of an entire religious community is a massive loss of "social and spiritual capital," adding a specific layer of tragedy to the overall tally of suffering.

 2. The Killing of the Innocent
In a situation of "Total War," the distinction between a soldier and a civilian often becomes blurred in the eyes of decision-makers, but the moral problem remains: Is it right to intentionally kill a smaller number of innocent people to save a much larger number of people?

The argument used by the Truman administration was based on a calculation of net survival:

•  The Projection: Military planners estimated that a ground invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall) would last well into 1946 or 1947. They projected American casualties in the hundreds of thousands and Japanese casualties (both military and civilian) in the millions, as the population had been mobilized to fight to the death.
•  The Comparison: On one side of the scale, you had the immediate and horrific deaths of roughly 200,000 people in two cities. On the other side, you had the "statistical certainty" of 2 million to 5 million deaths across the entire Japanese archipelago if the war continued.

 3. Is it Justifiable?
If the primary goal of an ethical decision is to minimize the total amount of pain and maximize the preservation of life across the entire human race, then the decision is framed as a tragic necessity.

Under this logic:
•  A leader is forced to choose the path that results in the lowest aggregate death toll.
•  If dropping the bombs resulted in a net "saving" of millions of lives (even if those lives were preserved at the cost of 200,000 others), then the action is seen as the more "efficient" way to end the horror of the war.
•  The "innocence" of the victims is a secondary factor to the quantity of lives preserved. In this view, 200,000 innocent lives are a terrible loss, but 2,000,000 innocent lives are a ten times greater loss.

 The Moral Conclusion
The justification rests entirely on the idea that the end result—the immediate cessation of a global slaughter—outweighs the horrific means used to achieve it.

Critics of this view argue that some actions (like killing innocents) are "intrinsically wrong" regardless of the outcome. However, the defenders of the decision argue that a leader who refuses to take a "smaller" evil action, and thereby allows a "greater" evil (millions more deaths) to happen, is actually more morally responsible for the resulting bloodbath. In their view, the "right" choice is simply the one that leaves the most people alive when the smoke clears.

Me:
So truman sacrifice the lives of certain people, including Christains, against their will to save many more lives, will it be right to call that human sacrifice

GPT | Claude | MidJourney:
Using the term "human sacrifice" to describe Truman’s decision shifts the conversation from military strategy into the realm of deep philosophy and ethics. Whether that term is "right" depends entirely on whether you are looking at it through a utilitarian/political lens or a moral/religious one.

Here is how those different perspectives evaluate that specific word:

 1. The Argument for "Human Sacrifice" (The Moral Critique)
From a strictly moral or religious viewpoint, one could argue the term fits because:
•  The Intentionality: In a ritual sacrifice, an innocent life is taken to achieve a specific goal (blessings, safety, the end of a plague). In Hiroshima, innocent lives were taken as a "means to an end" (the end of the war).
•  The Lack of Consent: Unlike a soldier who "sacrifices his own life" (voluntarily), the civilians in Japan had their lives taken for a cause they did not choose.
•  The Calculation: If you believe that human life has "infinite" value, then you cannot "trade" 200,000 lives to save 2 million. To do so treats human beings as "currency" or "objects" to be spent for a perceived higher good—which is a core element of how we describe sacrifice.

 2. The Argument Against "Human Sacrifice" (The Political/Military Defense)
Proponents of Truman’s decision would argue the term is inaccurate because:
•  The Absence of Ritual: Traditional human sacrifice is a religious act meant to appease a deity. Truman’s decision was a secular, agonizing choice made in a "Total War" started by others.
•  The "No-Win" Scenario: They would argue that Truman didn't "choose" to kill people; he was presented with a situation where people were going to die regardless. If he didn't drop the bomb, he would be "sacrificing" millions of others to a prolonged war. In this view, he wasn't "performing a sacrifice," he was "minimizing a massacre."
•  Self-Defense: In international law, the deaths of civilians in a war are usually categorized as "collateral damage" or "tragic necessity" rather than sacrifice, provided the intent was to strike a military target to end a conflict.

 3. The Ethical Framework: "Utilitarianism"
In philosophy, this is the classic "Trolley Problem." If a runaway trolley is going to kill five people, is it "right" to pull a lever to switch it to a track where it will kill only one person?
•  If you pull the lever, you have "sacrificed" that one person's life to save the five.
•  Many people find this act "logical" but "morally haunting."

By calling it "human sacrifice," you are highlighting the coldness of the math—the idea that a leader can decide who lives and who dies based on a numbers game.

 4. The Christian/Theological Conflict
This brings the conversation back to your earlier point about Truman being a "follower of Christ."
•  The Cross: Central to Christianity is the idea of a voluntary sacrifice—Jesus giving his own life for others.
•  The Bomb: The "sacrifice" in Japan was involuntary.

From a strict "Christ-like" perspective, many theologians argue that a Christian can never "sacrifice" someone else to save themselves or their nation. They argue that if a sacrifice is to be made, the Christian must be the one on the altar, not the one holding the knife (or the bomb).

 Summary
If you define "human sacrifice" as "the intentional killing of innocent people to achieve a perceived greater good," then the term is a powerful and arguably accurate description of the atomic bombings.

However, if you define it as a "ritualistic murder for a supernatural purpose," it doesn't fit. Truman's supporters would prefer words like "burden of command" or "unavoidable tragedy," arguing that in a world of war, there are no "clean" hands, and the only "right" thing to do is to find the path that leads to the fewest possible graves.

[Set the leader of Venezuela free immediately unless drug is the reason for his abduction]

To Babylon
Set the leader of Venezuela free immediately unless drug is the reason for his abduction


If Venezuela leader was actually abducted he must be set free within 24hours otherwise there will be fierce judgment from the LORD. And it will be better they never thought of kidnapping a President.

The drug issue was why you were allowed to strike but just like a snake you are who cannot be trusted, you turn this into ideology war.  We will not be part of unprincipled and immoral behavior. Our yes is yes and our no is no. We said yes to dealing with issue of dangerous drug smuggling to your children and no to the deviation to unwarranted attacks. Involving the saints in this wickedness is a great evil that will never go unpunished unless it is immediately reversed.

As the conflict in Ukraine (which started around 2014 before the intervention of Russia in February 2022) gradually comes to an end, we wish to state clearly that the People or Regions who voted to join or became part of Russia through democratic means, which happened after (or was as a result of) the violent hijack of Ukraine by pro European forces which the new Russia regions do not recognize as legitimate authority nor want to be part of, for the right reasons, such as unreasonable coup against constituted authority, anti-Russia stands of Europe, the open promotion of immoral freedom of choice by the entity that controls Europe and other kinds of immoral practices.
We fully recognize the right of a Nation or Society to secede or be free, if the right is based on self preservation from destructive culture in its former union, and even preservation from possible attacks, annihilation, persecution, identity change in the union for not accepting the destructive culture. And this right is more accepted if the seceding nation can stand on its own or be protected by another nation with similar culture, or nation that finds its culture acceptable.


The remaining regions that equally want to secede but are still under the control of Ukraine could be allowed to remain part of Ukraine if the right to be exempted from destructive culture will be fully respected, with no further threats to the regions, otherwise they are allowed to be independent or be part of Russia, and any further attempt to prevent them would be punished or not tolerated.

In regards to "security guarantee" for Ukraine, any force that seek to provide the guarantee must be supervised by a neutral force/forces to prevent potential abuses against Ukraine or Russia. Any attempt to abuse it will be severely punished — the abusing force will be exposed, sanctioned and removed from their positions.
This force could be station in Ukraine to serve as the security guarantor.


We hoped that the Russia Ukraine issue was resolved by USA through her President (Donald Trump) so that it'll be on record that he and USA played a major role, but it seems this responsibility is too much for the President to handle even though he has done quite OK, so we decided to intervene while remaining within the path taken by the President to resolve the conflict, but without including certain contentious part.



It's important to note that once this settlement pronouncement goes into force, starting from today, no nation, region, company, organization, entity etc should reject it. The new reality, that is part of the settlement (for example Donbass being part of Russia) must not be ignored or rejected, otherwise the company, region, nation, etc will be administered by people/authority who will implement it.


*Glory be to our CREATOR for making this possible.

When Russia got into Ukraine for the Special Military Operation, her activities in the country proved her intention was genuine. The target was to liberate "the people", and stop the war that started in 2014 rather than subject them to suffering and inhuman conditions.
She went with foods, water, etc, for the people in the  conflict zones, and even went as far as temporally accommodating them (especially children, women, the aged) in safe regions and Russia while carrying the operation. I remember in the early days of the operation, Ukraine soldiers who surrendered where treated well and allowed to leave.

I expect Israel to replicate this or even do better in the conflict zones since the targets are hamas, terrorists and terror groups rather than innocent people. This will prove her intention is genuine and innocent Palestinians aren't part of the target

Hive is a decentralized cryptocurrency network, a fork of Steem(Steemit), that priorize on blogging or posting. It also has alot of other things built on top of it, such as decentralized exchanges, stores, games, fitness platform (rewards people to keep fit), etc

The network started after a takeover of steemit by an individual. Steemit users weren't so happy about the takeover/sales, they protested, probably hoping to have it reversed but nothing happened, and they ended up creating Hive from the steem network around 2020 or so.  [It's important to let you know that if you created an account on steemit before the split, you can simply import it on Hive and possibly enjoy the benefit of owning an equal amount of coins and other assets you owned on steem]

I rejoined Hive network early last year after abandoning it to focus more on bitcointalk, and was impressed how far they have gone. It's an example of how a network own by a community can be better than the individually owned if the members are determined to make it work, rewarding their hardwork and determination. It seems there is strong enthusiasm to develop whatever useful project that can work on the network.

By the way, the price of Hive seems to be performing really better than steem lately. I noticed they were almost thesame last year, and the members have to be informed why the price wasn't doing so well,  that, plus other factors helped the price to eventually shoot up, almost doubling the price of steem at some point.

Hive is a place to be if you love to trade between USD backed coin and other crypto like Hive, Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc, free of charge (for Hive/USD swap), at really fast transaction (about 3secs) while controlling your keys and coins.
.
For more information, visit or Google search:
hive.io     It's a community run site where things that run on Hive are listed. It could also serve as guide to Hive network

[Here are the list of criteria for any interested service, business, company:]

Please get in touch via Private Message if interested.

Here are the list of criteria for any interested service, business, company:

The company or business should have this characteristics:

- Decentralized, p2p or non-custodial
- Transparent or Opensource
- Trustless (eg: does not encourage trust without undeniable proof of credibility of claims)
- Use of evidence based reputation system.
- Immutablity(vital info or data such as transactional data should be immutable)
- privacy-friendly
- permissionless (requires little to no permission to participate)


The kind of Business/Company:

Fully online based businesses that deal on virtual products/services are preferred, unless local exchange of physical products/services with local peers(or peers nearest to each other) is possible...every physical product and service must be transparently listed on the business platform.

The business, virtual or physical products must be useful, harmless (or not for harm) or safe unless they are used for self defense & lawful, in which case, the evidences of use of the products/business should be recorded, or have atleast 2 honest witnesses just in case they are needed by the courts or security agencies for investigations.

It's as simple as that.  Get in touch via PM if interested.

Or are there countries where IDs and maybe phone numbers are required before making purchases physically? Imagine how strange it would be to present your ID before buying or selling in physical world. Not sure I've ever been required to present ID before buying or selling, even physical foreign currencies offline.  The kyc phenomenon seems to be peculiar to online world and bank transactions.
 
I think human right to privacy shouldn't be violated in anyway unless the human is involved in serious crimes or some suspicious activities. And even when ID becomes necessary, it should be handled with care to prevent it from going into the wrong hands.

By the way, the kyc issues could make thriving online economically alot difficult for people in certain remote places who probably prefer to have little to zero contact with modern world. This are the kind of people crypto would be more suitable for, unfortunately they will be denied access to lots of cryptocurrency exchanges in existence today.

Because cryptocurrency was finally saved from a possible globalist takeover with the victory of Trump
There are other minor and somewhat related reasons which partly acted as triggers and contributed to that. One of which is positive sentiment toward certain cryptocurrency by one or few persons. This ended up affecting the rest of the market.

But the real and most important reason is the election victory by an anti-globalist President.  It was a really challenging battle that started immediately after the last election on Nov 2020. It was very difficult thing for me due to the fact I'm sort of a democrat who usually supported democrats. However, we don't blindly support our kind at the expense of those who deserve our support. And I also realize that crypto will benefit more under the regime of the one who deserves our support. That was one of the most important motivating factors that kept me going.

By the way, the support cost me alot in this world. But it was a matter of doing what is right, and I can't go against my conscience.
In a fair world we would be appreciated for standing by the victim, free of charge, from the beginning till the end while giving up alot, for example my sources of income. It was really hard to focus on many things at thesame time. Anyway, I do not expect anything in return in an unfair world. My reward is from above. The most important thing is that justice has been done and crypto is saved.

I hope this doesn't excite the market. I do not want that to happen yet because things aren't going the way they should go in this space.

Before I start highlighting the issues with Bitcoin and its progress and development so far, let's first of all understand why it was created in the beginning to be able to determine whether or not it's progressing at the right direction or at a pace it ought to be progressing.

In the past during the Bush/Obama era, there was a global financial crisis that necessitated the creation of a different financial system that is based on predetermined rules or protocols hardcoded into the it and difficult to change especially without community consent. This is to make it difficult for unilateral/unchecked decisions or changes to be made by few individuals that affect everyone who is part of the financial system.  For this to be possible the whole system has to be monitored and controlled by the community or participants, so that the unilateral changes become almost impossible. This would mean running the system in decentralized, transparent and trustless manner continously, otherwise it eventually becomes centralized for the unilateral changes by few corrupt individuals to be possible, which could possibly ruin the system and lead to financial crisis. This is what Bitcoin is about, to give control back to the community.

Unfortunately, if not done right, a thing like Bitcoin, controlled and supervised by the community can be slow in progress or development compared to few people taking decisions without supervision. Much of the good ideas proposed to help develop Bitcoin without violating the important principles that enable it to be supervised and controlled by the community have not been implemented. This has kept Bitcoin poorly developed and slow in progress causing it to become somewhat outdated, slow, clunky, difficult to use, etc. By now, it should be possible to use Bitcoin in decentralized peer-to-peer manner with very cheap fees and really fast transaction on a very advanced system that can handle alot of things imaginable, but so far  very little to nothing has been achieved. Whatever advanced solution or progress that currently exist, actually deviate from the original goal of Bitcoin and could lead to crisis.

Poor, deceptive and centralized alternatives have emerged, with solutions that seem to solve the Bitcoin issues, but underneath the whole thing is nothing but scams administered by greedy overlords who lack principles and have little to zero idea (or don't really care) why Bitcoin was invented in the first place

Don't you think it's morally good for employees to share profits or losses with business owners, than getting paid fixed salaries/wages, whether businesses are profitable or not?
I mean, how OK is it to pay employees for producing nothing or bad products. And why don't owners increase employees pay when things are going very well for their businesses?
Let's consider the wider negative or positive effect this can have on the economy of a society. If you get undersevedly paid for producing or solving little to nothing, the business may become unprofitable and underdeveloped, and the paid money could end up adding to the demand burden of a product or service that isn't sufficiently produced in a society due people like you not producing enough of it, yet receiving underseved payments. Or maybe the product producers aren't able to produce enough due to inadequate/lack of skilled contributions from people who are getting undeserved payments.  Likewise producing bad products and yet receiving undeserved payments meant for producers who do better jobs. And you may end up using the payments to buy things from people who produce good quality products, while the good quality product producers may end up paying for bad quality stuff people like you produce, with more money rather than less. The bad product could end up affecting other producers ability to produce good quality things.    People getting or not getting paid what they don't or they deserve contribute to the listed issues above and more.

There are as well producers who don't get paid enough for the quality and quantity of their contributions to society. This could slow down productivity since they wouldn't have enough money to expand their businesses, buy or replace their equipments. The consequences of this to society could come inform of inflation or circulation of poor quality things produced by less qualified producers.


In a fair and effective business environment, those who produce or solve problems better get more, while the worse get less. By the way, this could make the public sectors get what they deserve rather than the current method of wage increase whether deserved or not. And the collective wealth of society would be used more prudently according to quality/quantity of problems solved rather than undeserved funding of less productive public sectors or businesses.
Don't you think so?

[One World Currency]

It's important to let others have some useful information concerning BRICS, One World Currency, the so called New World Order, and the future judgment of Israel.

BRICS is not a new group with new agenda certain people are trying to associate it with. It has always been in existence, for more than 10years now , and the main reason it's becoming more important today is due to the new influence of Russia and issue she has with US and the West. So, Russia decided to use the alternative group which she has always been part of, to advance her cause/interest and that of friends/partners. Certain people are trying hard to push the group to become what is not and what it will never be.

* Concerning "One World Currency": there is no need for that since it's a globalist or One World Government aganda, which Russia is currently fighting against. The BRICS Nations will still continue to transact businesses with their national currencies. The plan now is to have a financial system that aid in interoperability of the currencies.
 In the future multiple currencies will still be in used by Nations but in a very controlled manner. The head of all nations can have great influence over the currencies

* Concerning "New World Order": BRICS has nothing to do with NWO. The terms New World order has nothing to do with WoG. But from the description of what it will be like, I believe it's closely related to a new order in the future when an American King who will be quite young (way below 30) will force the world to serve him. Those who do not, won't be able to buy or sell in the New Word Order. The order will come after a great choas.


Concerning "the Judgment of Israel". The young king who could also be called "little horn" or "half dragon half sheep", will gather nations to fight against Israel. And he will prevail.


All this have nothing to do with BRICS
The World's entity has always tried to be ahead in prophesy from our CREATOR in order to deceive or trick people into thinking the false ones is the real. They did that in ancient times with false jesus after the Real Prophesy of the first coming of MESSIAH. So they created many jesuses which made people to be deceived and have doubts about the real ONE upto this day.
So, always have it in your minds that the World's entity and its servants will try to be the first to fulfill ancient prophesy, but the real fulfilments usually come much later

Ofcourse, alot of us already know demand and supply are the main determinants of price of products or coins.
How about factors that specifically cause a product or coin to have high or low demand, and consequently determining its price?
What factors do you consider in the list or not in the list below before paying more (or less for a product/coin)

* Good quality: good quality creates more demand and higher price
* Utility/usefulness: the more useful, the more the demand and higher the price
* Longlasting: longlasting product would cost more.
* Hard/easy to produce: the more effort it would require to produce, the higher the price.
* Scarce/abundant: demand becoming greater than supply could create scarcity and high price.
* Easy to use: the easier it's to use, the more the demand
* Size: larger size,  higher the price
* Attractiveness: the fancier, the more demand
Etc,

I think the combination of factors in the list, from high to low priority can actually make a product or coin pricey. So, if you want higher price/demand then create a product or coin with more than one of the most important factors in the list.

What do you think?




Related post:
Do you compare prices or bargain before making purchases?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5512379.msg64610716#msg64610716

Do you bargain or compare prices of thesame products/services at different shops/places before making purchases or you don't care at all?
What do you think could be the main reason people care or don't care about prices of products/services while making purchases? You think it's due to economic status, are there other reasons you can think of?
 Most times I would not be too bothered about the price of products if I think they're worth it, or if I think that's actual price of the product, whether I can easily afford the price or not.  And I often times price things quite low when I'm not sure about the real price or the true worth/value, hoping to get the sellers bring them lower down to their actual worth. Some sellers tend to move things up too high if they think they are uncommon and attractive, or the buyers are rich. Once I suspect this kind of sellers I either bargain hard, tell them I'm not too rich or check somewhere else where I will try to appear not-too-rich or pretend to be already familiar with the products






Related post:
What determines the price of a Product or Coin?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5512883.0

A female Presidential candidate is a mistake. There is no place for Queen in the prophesy. Only Kings










*Prophesy concerning Babylon

Considering it's the main global and reserve currency of the world, what needs to be done to make sure it's not abuse by those with the privilege to control it? How do we prevent a situation where the dollar reserves of other nations are seized by the privileged few for whatever reason since they are owned by nations rather than individuals? How do we prevent them from weakening its value through over printing or printing more than is needed? There are other abuses that need to be prevented, and one of the most effective ways to do this is to encourage nations with reserves in dollars to check and balance the activities of those who control the currency.  They shouldn't print more currency without the consent of other nations and without being very transparent otherwise they will lose their positions and be replaced with responsible people. There is a point in time when stakeholders in businesses should determine how the businesses are run and the right rules that govern them otherwise why allow the stakeholders in the first place? Don't allow other nations to have dollar reserve if you don't need their consent in managing the currency.  This is particularly important since it's a national currency majority of nations rely on to shield them from weakening local currencies which are typically used for local transactions unlike dollars, it's tied to numerous assets globally and is better regulated than other currencies. If it fails the nations that heavily rely on it will crumble more easily. It should remain dominant currency for now until we find a better replacement.

To be continued...