Part of my regular morning routine includes scanning some of the dailies to see what’s been happening while I’ve been asleep. I tend to focus on news produced internationally because not only is local (i.e. Canadian) news irretrievably biased, it’s also woefully myopic. If I relied on them exclusively to tell me what’s happening around the world I’d be a very dull boy indeed.

But occasionally there’s an article, like the one in today’s Toronto Star, that inadvertently provides enough entertainment value to be worth a read.

Here we’re introduced to the work of the Founders Fund (not to be confused with the Founders Fund), a business incubator “by women, for women”.

At the outset it’s important to note that I take absolutely no issue with ladies supporting each other to build business. In fact, I think it’s great!

It sucks that a similar men-for-men organization would be screamed out of existence, this despite the fact that the growing inequality gap means that nearly as many men might also be helped out of increasingly abject poverty, not to mention increasing obscurity, but I don’t want to dwell on that.

What struck me as funny is the liberal use of words like “diversity” and “inclusivity” in the literature of the organization.

Really? Overtly excluding roughly half of the earth’s population is “diverse” and “inclusive”? I must be using the old, non-woke dictionary here.

I had to chuckle when I read that the fund (which keeps 50% of its members’ fees), supports “women-identifying entrepreneurs”. So it’s not just biological women who can apply for funding, it can also be any dude who’s willing to throw on a dress and call themselves a lady.

Honestly, though, that sounds pretty damn sexist.

Why would women need to wear dresses and even “act like a lady” to be considered women? I would expect that any guy walking into the Founders Fund offices claiming to be a woman, no matter how “cisnormative” and stereotypically masculine they may seem, would be considered for funding. Surely no one else, including any medical professional, has the right to override one’s self-identification.

It’s a funny corner this exclusively “inclusive” mindset has painted itself into.

The Star article goes over some of the types of businesses that are being supported by the Fund, such as Alder Apparel, which has chosen to focus on the apparently dismal dearth of “functional and fashionable women’s outdoor clothing”. A quick Google search seems to suggest otherwise but I’ll be the first to admit that the subjective world of fashion mostly escapes me so I could definitely be wrong there.

Although a number of prominent images on Alder’s site, not to mention many of those that appear in their extended image galleries, appear to feature traditional “thin, white and athletic” models (an image that Alder claims to be challenging), there’s a handful of differing body types and races on display so, I guess, racist patriarchy smashed?

The Founders Fund has invested in other ventures such as a pricey panic-attack app (which prior to the funding had for some reason somehow excluded “Black, Indigenous and people of colour communities”), athletic hijabs, something called a “a family mealtime experience”, a company that produces “gender-inclusive underwear for people ‘who defy gender norms.'”, and my contextual favourite, a “peer-based program to enhance students’ critical-thinking skills.”

Not mentioned is the fact that both the Fund and Alder, perhaps others, seem to be connected to Shopify, the same Ottawa-headquartered company that provided the building blocks for the government’s contact-tracing app.

I wonder if that “critical-thinking” program will touch on some of these subjects. Oughta be a hoot.

There’s a lot of news happening around the world and it’s simply not possible to cover it all. That’s understandable.

And even though some of that news is tragic, only a handful of it can possibly make the front page. I get it.

Every news outlet is (supposed to be) different and editorial decisions that include which stories to run will necessarily produce a bias. That’s fair.

Or at least it would be fair if there was even a hint of balance between the outlets. It would be fair if there was an occasionally alternative voice, if they weren’t all in lock-step, pushing forward a very obvious agenda.

Case in point: everyone remembers Treyvon Martin, the young black man whose name we’re all supposed to perennially keep on our lips, killed by a “racist white man” in Florida in on his grandmother’s front lawn after going out to buy some Skittles.

For a brief moment the media reluctantly wavered in their “racist white man” tirade when pictures of the killer began circulating. Turned out that, if anything, he was Hispanic or Latino. The story wouldn’t have been any better if Treyvon had been killed by a green Martian but the point I’m trying to make is how it was immediately spun into a “yet another racist white man kills an unarmed, innocent black child” narrative.

The brief moment was followed by renewed attempts attempts to paint George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic“, as idiotic as that sounds. But if race is based on physical characteristics and ethnicity is based on culture and upbringing, as the increasingly absurd news kept promoting, then surely “Latino Catholic” would be far more accurate. Or since Catholicism is widely understood to have been founded in what is now Italy, maybe his ethnicity should be Italian? And since his mother is Peruvian and undoubtedly injected some of her culture into his upbringing, wouldn’t it have made sense to call him Hispanic? How about “Latino Hispanic-Italian”?

Come to think of it, it’s absurd to call someone a Latino Hispanic if they have Latino racial characteristics and Hispanic cultural roots, but this precisely the lengths that the media insist on to ensure that their narrative of a murderous “racist white Hispanic” (emphasis on “white”), is maintained.

And what kind of fucked up demarcation are we supposed to engage in to determine when someone has sufficiently “Latino” (or “Black”, or whatever), physical characteristics? Who gets to decide, and on what basis, who qualifies as predominantly black or Latino or white or Asian or Indigenous, and how is this not unbelievably racist and segregationist?

Yet this is precisely what the incoherent media demand, all so they can continue the narrative that yet another “racist white man” killed an unarmed, innocent black child.

And it was this completely false and ridiculously twisted narrative that spawned the Black Lives Movement which aims, ostensibly, to end “systemic” racism against black people, especially in the context of the police.

Except Zimmerman is neither white nor a cop. And the “stand your ground” laws that Zimmerman successfully used to get away with it aren’t mentioned at all by BLM.

But why should that matter when yet another “racist white man” kills an unarmed, innocent black boy?

Let’s contrast this against a very recent murder in North Carolina in which a 25-year-old black man walked up to a 5-year-old white boy playing in front of his house, put a gun up to his head, and literally executed him in front of his two young sisters.

The handful of US news outlets that bothered to report on this were careful to include “allegedly” in the headlines (was Zimmerman described as the “alleged” killer?), and made sure to remind their audience that the motive for the murder was unclear (flip the skin colours and it’s instantly “racism”, case closed).

Here in Toronto you won’t find a single mention of this story anywhere.

I searched CityNews, CBC News, Global News, the Toronto Star, National Post, Globe and Mail, and Toronto Sun, and although there’s an occasional article about racist (i.e. white) North Carolina cops being fired, apparently the news out of the same state of a little white boy being brutally murdered on his front lawn in front of his sisters by a black man simply isn’t worthy of even a mere mention. Is that because the victim is white or because the perpetrator is black? Maybe a little of both.

But none of this is new.

Everyone’s heard of Treyvon Martin and the immediate rage that followed his death but who’s even heard of Cannon Hinnant?

Everyone knows about George Floyd, maybe not so much about his less-than-angelic past, and who has any idea of who Timothy Coffman was? Where’s the outrage and protests for Corey West? What about Tony Timpa?

Everyone remembers Rodney King but who remembers Reginald Denny?

Due to sheer numbers, there are bound to be far more examples of these kinds of things happening to white people than to black people. The way these incidents are constantly ignored by the media, onlookers, and society in general, goes a long way in explaining why we simply don’t hear about them and why examples of such injustice, when black people are victims, flood every media channel out there.

I’m not suggesting that it’s acceptable when black people (or anyone!) are brutalized, what I’m asking is why similar incidents are nearly completely ignored when the much more numerous victims are white?

And who bothers to mention that in the US, white hate crime victims outnumber victims of anti-semitism, anti-Islamism, or anti-LGBTQ-ism, often by a large margin. The media go to great lengths to make it seem that the exact opposite is true. In fact, behind black people, white people are the second most likely group to be hated on of any racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation group — as long as every individual is considered equally.

And even though they occupy the number one position for hate crime victims, black people are only slightly less likely to be hit by lightning (0.0002% = 1 ÷ 500,000), than they are to be the victim of a hate crime (0.0007% = 2,325 ÷ 328,200,000 total US population).

The overall numbers are minuscule no matter how you look at them, yet hate crimes against everyone except white people are regularly played up in the media. Why is that?

And to what lengths will the media go to defend, justify, and “explain” violence against a white person when they would balk at even the hint of a suggestion that a black person be criticized and analyzed in the same way?

When they claim that they want to “dismantle white supremacy”, are they advocating that everyone simply be left to their own devices or that it be replaced with the dominance of another group? Has anyone bothered to ask this question?

Don’t even get me started on the constantly evolving definition of what constitutes “white privilege” which now is supposed to mean how a white person’s life isn’t made more difficult because of the colour of their skin. I can write at length on this topic with plenty of personal, first-hand experiences of exactly how my life was made more difficult specifically, directly, and very openly because I’m white (and a man). I bet plenty of other white people have similar experiences to share, at least until it’s decided to shift the definition again.

Despite the daily avalanche of examples we see demonstrating something entirely different (I’m working my way through a detailed write-up about the OHRC’s latest road apple), we’re supposed to believe that black people are being “systematically targeted for demise” (according to BLM), and being oppressed by “white supremacy” and “white privilege” everywhere.

In the words of Jeanie Bueller, “dry that one out and you can fertilize the lawn.”

I took a trip to a local grocery store this morning to get some coffee and bread. I was surprised to see a line formed outside of the front doors, similar to ones we’ve seen not so long ago.

“That’s weird,” I thought as I peeked into the seemingly empty store expecting it to be visibly busy, so I asked the security guard why people were being held back.

He told me that there were only two cashiers working and that the lines to pay were causing unacceptable congestion. I couldn’t tell if this was true from outside so I just shrugged my shoulders and plodded back into line.

My little detour managed to lose me a few spots so I ended up waiting for an additional 10 minutes, not because the line was long but because the tiny trickle of people leaving/entering was excruciatingly slow.

In all, roughly 5 people had left by the time I got inside the spacious store. Not exactly the deluge that I was given as a reason for being kept outside in the first place. But maybe the crowd was inside, away from view?

Nope.

As I circled the store there I counted no more than 30 people inside, and no one at the checkouts. There was only one entrance / exit so unless these “long lines” spontaneously de-materialized into thin air, where did all of the shoppers disappear to?

I got a sort-of answer to my question when I strolled up to pay for my purchases at the still-completely-empty checkout. (This is not an exaggeration, there were literally no people in line).

I told the cashier that people were being made to wait outside based on a claim that the store, or at least the cashiers, were crowded. Except … where were all the people?

She turned to me and with a heavy, sputtering Filipino accent said, “only have two cashiers working so need to limit lines. Too many people!”

“Yeah, I already heard that. But what lines?”

“Would you like bags, sir?” she replied, seemingly ignoring my question.

I leaned in and made an obvious show of looking around to try to spot these imaginary “lines” of people, then asked again, “what lines?”

She stared at me blankly for a moment, as if the question had overloaded her brain, and only managed to blurt out “bags?” a second time before turning away. Didn’t even wait for my response.

I decided to ask one more time. “I’m sorry, what lines are you talking about? Was it very busy earlier?”

She turned around and, once again seemingly ignoring the obvious revelation that she and store security had been shoveling bullshit, cocked her head to the side with noticeable annoyance (I guess at having to hold up the throngs of invisible people waiting behind me), and asked once again if I wanted bags.

I decided to drop the questions. I knew it wasn’t a language barrier; she’d already used the same words I had. This was possibly an example of cognitive dissonance on full display. Or maybe it was a form of genuine mental illness in which she was hallucinating long lines of people where there were none. Maybe this was what life is like in the government’s “new reality”.

This could almost be a humorous anecdote if it wasn’t so indicative of the general public’s unwillingness / inability to see the reality that’s quite literally right in front of them.

When the police or military brutalize them, kick in their house doors, or violently pull them out of their cars for staying out too late or not obeying the newest set of arbitrary government dictates, as is being done in Australia (be sure to read the last few paragraphs!), a virtuous example being promoted here in Canada, these same people will ostensibly deny that what they’re experiencing actually exists. And we can be certain that this won’t be the result of a philosophical inquisition into the nature of reality.

It’s hard to know when a line has been crossed when that line doesn’t even exist.

The Toronto Star ran an article yesterday about going to the dentist while pandemicking.

I’d very recently gone myself with a chipped tooth so I can confirm everything that I read as being entirely accurate. I wasn’t asked “a lot” of questions but that’s an entirely subjective measure so I’ll leave it at that.

There wasn’t anything really exceptional about the write-up except for a brief line about halfway through:

Many dentists are now using a [pre-procedural] hydrogen peroxide-based rinse, which is thought to also help with viruses.

It wasn’t the insertion of a link to a name-brand mouth rinse product in this sentence that I found curious, even though it came across as a sort of stealth advertisement, it was the statement that hydrogen peroxide was in the rinse.

Ah, I thought, so that’s why the mouthwash tasted a little different. Dentist never bothered to tell me what was in it. I can’t say that I’m bothered by the chemical’s presence but it would still have been nice for the dentist to let me know what I was swishing with.

Whatevs.

But it got me wondering just how effective hydrogen peroxide is in dealing with viruses like Covid. So I did some research and it turns out it’s pretty efficacious. But there’s a catch.

According to information provided by the city, achieving the “high-level of disinfection” that actually kills bacteria and viruses requires that the chemical be kept in the mouth anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes depending on the variety used. I sure as hell didn’t swish for that long and I doubt most patients do.

Even “low-level disinfection” that kills “some” bacteria and viruses needs you to rinse for a minimum of 10 minutes, which I also wasn’t anywhere close to achieving.

As far I know, hydrogen peroxide is generally safe so it’s highly unlikely that rinsing with it will cause any problems. But at the same time, it seems that the way it’s being used also doesn’t offer many benefits in terms of virus protection.

I’ll readily admit that my familiarity with this topic is pretty shallow but it does seem that this particular portion of a dental visit is more wishful thinking than a proven solution, at least in the way that it’s being used presently.

It makes me wonder what other things are being done for our “protection” that, although they may be entirely benign, also don’t offer the stated benefits.

“Crisis actors” are people who have volunteered or been hired to play victims in emergency drills and training scenarios. This is a well-known and undisputed practice.

Somewhat less undisputed are the various theories floating around on the internet about crisis actors being employed by governments and large corporations to covertly produce knowingly fake “emergency” scenarios in order to promote an (often hidden) agenda.

Are crisis actors used to promote propagandist narratives? I’m not entirely convinced but given the types of things that governments openly get up to on a daily basis I certainly wouldn’t put it above them.

This is what’s running through my mind as I read articles on people protesting the imposition of face masks here in the city. They (the protesters), are invariably presented as idiots, “mostly white”, “Karens”, and other openly derisive and overtly racist terms to show the world just how despicable (and white), it is to question popular opinions and the wisdom of our benign and loving government.

Thing is, based on some of the things I’ve seen and heard I don’t entirely disagree.

Notwithstanding the unbelievable levels of blatant anti-white rhetoric being pumped out by nearly every facet of the establishment, the people being exemplified in these articles really do come across as a little dull. In fact, my own interactions with similar protests in the past has led me to the same conclusion.

When I’ve approached such people and told them that I agree with their cause, albeit for different reasons, I would’ve expected that they would be pleased to have both an ally and additional arguments to back their position. Instead, I’m often met with stone-faced ignorance, by which I mean that they quite literally turn their back and ignore me like I didn’t exist.

I can’t help wondering, are these people disinfo actors? Are they being put out there to demonstrate how stupid and ignorant one would look if one also questions the established wisdom of the authorities? Have I challenged their mission of painting dissidents as dangerous imbeciles in a way that they don’t know how to deal with?

As I said, knowing the well-established and proven public facts of how governments operate makes these suspicions perfectly reasonable. That they would engage in covert, soft censorship certainly isn’t beyond the pale for them.

Consider, for example, that the only anti-mask arguments being “advertised” like this have to do with the efficacy of face coverings, the size of the particles involved, and the illusory “rights and freedoms” of the protesters.

Why not, for example, question the general safety of masks given that the government itself provides exemptions for people with health issues?

Doesn’t that put borderline and undiagnosed individuals at dire risk of severe medical problems, especially during this hot and humid summer we’ve been having? Is it justifiable to knowingly put certain people in harm’s way — as admitted by the government in its own directives — in order to make others feel safe, especially when Covid numbers in the city are at a historic low? And if face masks are so risk-free then why have any exemptions at all, especially for people with underlying respiratory problems?

Perhaps the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle: masks aren’t without risks but the government has deemed those risks (to individual human lives), acceptable. Similarly, the safety and efficacy of flu vaccines seem like highly germane and timely topics but you won’t hear anything even resembling a balanced discussion about them, just like the absurd and one-sided rhetoric being promulgated to support BLM. Why would individual human lives matter when there’s a false narrative based on twisted statistical aggregates, nonsensical comparisons, and “community effects” instead?

I’ve even been accused of “tricking” people and abusing their various mental conditions (only revealed after the fact), simply by having them conclude their own thought processes through a line of fairly simple and direct questioning.

“I have ADHD you asshole! You tricked me into saying that I’m okay with censorship and state murder just because I said that the government should kill anyone who disagrees! FUCK YOOOOUUUUUU!1!!!!!” This is an actual quote from an online discussion I was involved in, obviously not on the same topic but still indicative of the types of responses I’ve received.

After being accused of “weaponizing facts” and using “magical logic” for the umpteenth time I finally gave up. Their own opinions, as expressed by them, are as nothing to how they feel, and I certainly won’t convince them that what they say is what they actually mean. And heaven forbid I should engage in “bully tactics” like quoting them to demonstrate inconsistent or self-contradictory arguments.

Yes, questions are stupid (and racist, misogynistic, white supremacist, etc.), especially when someone’s own answers might lead them to conclusions that might make them feel uncomfortable. The horror. Just stab me already.

So it’s been about a week since our betters passed a municipal bylaw requiring the imposition of mandatory indoor masks pretty much everywhere except schools and daycare, transportation (noting that the TTC has its own bylaws), medical facilities, and residential buildings.

There are some neat specifics for businesses, like bars, which can legally allow patrons indoors:

*The bylaw allows for temporary removal of a mask or face covering when receiving services (such as having a meal) or while actively engaging in an athletic or fitness activity.

How thoughtful! You’re allowed to temporarily lift your mask to shove a fry in your mouth or down a few gulps of lager.

The implied stupidity makes it really hard to take it seriously. And I suspect this is why many people doubt government so-called experts and advisors. After all, this is the same caliber of people who brought us things like the smoking bylaw that penalizes business owners if they fail to police a 9 meter (29.5 feet) radius in front of their premises, a distance that often extends well into the street if not all the way across.

I haven’t heard of anyone being rounded up into cattle cars yet so for me the mask bylaw has so far been only a mild irritant. And there are loopholes in it that are big enough to drive a truck through. Nevertheless, I sympathize with the people who see this as a slippery slope.

Developments like the increasingly indefinite emergency measures being introduced by Doug Ford’s lackeys, when compared with something like the 9/11 anti-terror laws that over the years have never really abated, tend to produce some very plausible conclusions even if those conclusions haven’t yet been borne out.

When Doug Ford claims it’s not a power grab are we to assume he’s being honest? The oxymoron doth run deep there.

So is it so surprising when we find people resisting increasingly dictatorial demands by the state even as that same state tells us that Covid infections are way down “but we have to be ready for the next wave”? Sounds an awful lot like arbitrary, indefinite lockdowns and a complete stripping of people’s rights in the name of “public health measures“.

On top of that, it seems that in their frenzied efforts to impose their controls, governments may actually be openly violating the laws of their masters, something I realized while observing an interaction at a bank between a woman refusing to wear a mask and a front-door security officer refusing her access (to her own money).

The woman was showing the rent-a-cop the bylaw and claiming she had an illness, therefore couldn’t wear a mask. The diminutive female guard asked the woman what kind of illness she had and even after she was told it was asthma there was a lot of hemming and hawing.

At first I thought, how shitty of the government to make the businesses and ultimately their employees responsible for facing people’s wrath in increasingly tense times. Besides, I doubt most of these Covid bouncers have any training in determining which illnesses may or may not qualify so putting the onus on them to make safety decisions seems quite reckless.

Moreover, aren’t there provincial health privacy laws that specifically prevent random people demanding answers to exactly these types of questions? Aren’t business owners opening themselves up to lawsuits if they follow the city bylaw? Or do municipal laws supersede provincial legislation now?

Maybe until they get their act together we should #defundthestate

Yesterday, Toronto Star contributing columnist Don Tapscott of the Blockchain Research Institute wrote an interesting article. There’s a good chunk of it that I don’t agree with, or that largely misses the big picture, or that’s outright dim, but there are parts that have me feeling positive.

Here’s where I raised an expectantly optimistic eyebrow:

… the next era of the digital economy could bring epoch prosperity, with new networked models of global problem-solving to realize such a dream.

To meet these new challenges, the time has come for Canada to reimagine its social contract — the basic expectation between business, government and civil society.

This “social contract” that’s so often regurgitated in order to justify the ongoing control by the state of the people is not only a perversion of any concept of morality, justice, fairness, or human rights, but it’s also an assault on intelligence that requires you to simultaneously hold mindbogglingly self-contradictory statements while denying the reality that’s right in front of you. Any semblance of logic or common sense must be ejected in its defense.

Consider this mushy-headed blather:

Canada is learning the truth about the horrific history of our Indigenous population, which in turn now has tools to speak out and organize collective action.
…
People everywhere are “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” As such they have become vulnerable to populism, xenophobia and scapegoating minority ethnic groups, races and religions for problems. Centrist parties are in rapid decline and extremist right-wing parties from Hungary and Poland to France and Germany are on the rise.
…
We need to protect the security of personhood and end the system of digital feudalism. Individuals should own and profit from the data they create. We need new laws …

Let’s reword this without pretending that things happen in a vacuum:

Canadians are learning about the horrors largely imposed by the government on natives, citizens are being driven to extremes due to the policies and actions of their governments, and people are subject to “digital feudalism” within a system created by and maintained by the government. What’s the answer? Of course, it’s more government (i.e. new laws, regulations, bureaucracy)

Like I said … nonsensical mush.

That being said, if “reimagining” the so-called social contract means actually thinking about it (and bringing such thoughts to their inevitable conclusion), then I’m all for it. Yeah, people should think a little deeper about why and how they became the property of the government and if, maybe, they don’t need to be owned for their own safety.

Here’s the part in the article where I actually smiled:

We must adopt new models for citizen engagement in our government. In blockchain we have found one such model, with the possibility of embedding electoral promises into smart contracts.

Now, while the part about sticking electoral promises into smart contracts is shockingly naive (that’ll definitely stop politicians and bureaucrats from breaking their promises and lying to people), getting the public to use blockchain-based and cryptographic solutions is a good way to sway them towards the idea that lies, threats, theft, violence, and other criminality may not necessarily be the price that has to be paid in order to live in a “civilized society”.

Realizing that there are realistic alternatives to the unrelenting fist of the state, in other words, might cause people to take up the mantle of their own rights and responsibilities and maybe, just maybe, understand that the government is composed of the very same type of people that it’s ostensibly protecting them from.

Do we really need a bloated, deceptive, overpriced middleman to build and maintain roads, schools, and sewers? Are we really so violent that we need others like us to wield a much greater violence over us? If we disagree with who gets state benefits, would it not be better if we could directly decide not to provide them instead of having them seized and distributed against our will? Are people really so greedy and selfish that the goodwill organizations that exist now, under government, would cease to exist without the shackles of law and red tape?(*) Would corporations be able to put us into strangleholds without the protections of the state to maintain their patents, copyrights, and other “intellectual property”? Would monopolies exist without the state (the biggest monopoly of them all), protecting them against competition by throwing up barriers and putting down groundswells of resistance?

* I know from direct, firsthand experience that contrary to the opinions of “deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant” pundits like the New York Time’s David Brooks, who is quoted in the Blockchain Research Institute’s “manifesto” as proof that “the social fabric, the safety net and the human capital sources just aren’t strong enough”, there would be ample resources and willingness to help those in need — without government. Yeah, I’m calling a steaming pile of bullshit here.

The mere existence of such questions in broader discourse would be a very good thing indeed. Instead of sneering derision and vapid dismissal, people might be prompted to think about solutions to problems instead of simply accepting “necessary evils”. After all, voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. Why not spend that time and energy creating something good instead?

I wrote about this exact thing about 6 years ago. I’d like to believe that I was ahead of my time but in reality what I was discussing back then wasn’t either new or original, I just had to be both open and skeptical enough to discover it.

While the Star article represents only an incrementally tiny shift in consciousness, at least it seems to be a shift in the right direction.

In case haven’t mentioned it before, over the past few years I’ve been working on an open-source project called CypherPoker.JS

It’s a decentralized, soon to be anonymous, truly peer-to-peer Texas Hold’em platform that incorporates blockchain technologies and a unique cryptosystem named SRA (based on a MIT research paper from the late 70s), which remove the need for trusted third parties and the things that go along with them: rakes / high fees, censorship susceptibility, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, to date there’s nothing out there like this.

The “.JS” part means that the software is written in JavaScript for the modern browser, Node.js, and Electron. Basically, it runs on almost any device or operating system and yes, there’s a web demo you can try right now (or download the desktop version if you prefer).

A Short History

After building the core game engine and a basic but extensible UI I incorporated Bitcoin, pumped up the software’s peer-to-peer capabilities, and most recently added support for Bitcoin Cash. Because creating a team was the plan from the get-go I spent plenty of time documenting everything along the way.

There’s plenty more in store for CypherPoker.JS but it’s at a point now where I’m not sure I can continue to do it all on my own in a reasonable amount of time.So I’m reaching out to YOU, that person who thinks that this is a pretty kick-ass concept-turned-prototype that they’d like to be associated with. It has the potential to transform the online gaming industry, not just poker. Yes, this is that early stage project you’ve been waiting to join.

“I’m in! What can I do?”

Now, I get that not everyone’s a coder or designer and there are many shoes that need to be filled if this project is going to continue to grow at a healthy rate. Here are some suggestions:

• Exposure / Hype

Most social networks have a way to bring posts to prominence. These may include sharing, re-posting / cross-posting, liking, upvoting, plussing, starring. or otherwise showing approval or providing additional exposure. There’s a good chance that you can do that you can do one of these things right now and that it’s probably really easy.Also watch for new releases, updates, and upcoming stuff. Share whatever you think is interesting.

• Developers & Interactive Designers (UX / UI)

Modern (ECMAScript 2017) JavaScript, HTML5 / CSS3, browser, Node.js, Electron. Make GitHub pull requests with any important / useful / cool things. Some suggestions.

• Players & Testers

Give it a try! Make a free test account (no sign-up required), get some free testnet Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash and make a deposit (instructions on the site). Once the deposit is confirmed you can transfer it to other accounts, including new ones that you create. Be aware of this outstanding issue if you want to use Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash proper.

If you find problems, feel free to post them on the subreddit (or DM), tweet about them, or post them directly to the GitHub issues system where they should eventually end up anyway (you can use a free account). I also do email.

• Evangelism

Spread the gospel of peer-to-peer poker.Get to know its deeper inner truths. Play it, praise it, grow the flock!

• Donations

Those would help a lot, actually. My laptop’s been acting up and I’ll probably need a new one soon. I also don’t have regular internet access; makes working on this project challenging.

Bitcoin: 18yWpM7CnYox58YMJ2iVa1aJZCs1sufPhg

Bitcoin Cash: bitcoincash:qrgzc6nf6275er7k04tjwauf4ptm9mw9qcaq6fceup

• Host a Node / Distribute the Code

If you have some web server space or Node.js / PHP+MySQL hosting please consider hosting a node. Limits have been built into the software (e.g. max database size), so you don’t have to worry about it unnecessarily eating up resources. DM or email me for details.

• Sponsorship

Tournament funding and advertising are two immediate ideas that spring to mind but if you have any other sponsorship ideas I’d be happy to discuss them. Please contact me via DM or email.

• Quid Pro Quo

Perhaps you need a hand with one of your projects? Maybe you’d like a few guest blog posts? Possibly there’s some other reciprocal arrangement you’d like to propose?Contact me via DM or email to hash out the details.

11 Dundonald Street

Shortly after 3:30 p.m. on April 22, 2019, in the middle of a maddeningly, ironically blue, sunny, and warm Easter Monday, my good friend Oliver died.

You might remember him from some of these posts:

I’m sure there are more, but as you can see these posts go all the way to the beginning of Toronto City Life, because he was there. He was there a few years prior to the start of this blog, in fact.

And he was already a year or two old at the point where he wandered up to my back door one dark and blustery afternoon, begging to be let in to a perfect stranger’s home. He’d obviously been very recently abandoned by some asshole(s) who didn’t like his size and / or vociferousness and / or whatever. Either way, assholes.

Not long after, I got divorced, went to live in downtown Toronto. Ollie came with. There he helped me mark an era, spending his next 12-ish years calmly meditating, making friends, and contemplating life. He made friends with Sarah in microseconds while calmly enduring other animals I was house-sitting or playing guest to. And then there was the litany of people who traipsed through our house due to the MS.

He kept his composure even when living conditions were less than ideal and he had to eat food bank cat foot. He was called the “Buddha cat” by more than one keenly observant person.

Since the beginning I was profoundly aware, sometimes to the point of being melancholic, that I’d inherited a fragile creature that wouldn’t always be with me. Every second was borrowed time. Sure, some time down the road we would need to part ways, but not so early, not at that time.

But at least now I know I reminded him of my love as often as I could because I was aware of his mortality; dark, possibly, sad, always, but thinking about other’s deaths can be useful in that way. If they were to die tomorrow, how would you spend your last day with a loved one? It’s a question that needs to be asked regularly because tomorrow comes too fast.

* I’ll wait here while you go hug your pets and other loved ones *

I also knew that Ollie loved his food and genuinely enjoyed indoor athletics of the sort in which he didn’t have to participate. I made the decision early on that I wouldn’t ever deny him the pleasures of life in exchange for a few more years of it. He’d already been snipped (before I met him), and it seemed like infinite cruelty to inflict a life devoid of self-determinism, even if that manifested in hedonism. He may have lived a little longer, but would he have lived as well?

Although we were denying it most of the way, the end came gradually over a one-and-a-half week period.

We did the best with what we had, managed to scrounge together some money while discovering the kindness of strangers, but in the end his host of ailments won out. He went out mercifully quickly, peacefully, and pain free.

But so what?

His loss is utterly devastating. It’s shattering. It hurts in a real primal, painful place and you’re afraid that if you pull away you’ll be neglecting his memory and you can’t do that. Not yet. Not your good friend.

It’s just as devastating now as it was a week ago. I’m not sure at what point my heart will stop breaking. This is really fucking hard.

Today though, today, I can’t do nothing because it’s driving me up the wall, so I thought that maybe I could honour his memory with something he was publicly a part of: this blog.

You saw the links — Ollie’s an original, a founding partner.

But the blog has been ignored for a while and that seems very wrong. I think I should do better. For Ollie.

For starters, for me every Easter Monday will from now on be St. Ollie’s Day, a day in which we can observe our hirsute saint with libations and general enjoyment of life, as Ollie would undoubtedly want it. Keep in mind, Oliver really only preferred the three or five-year Parmesan, so keep it as classy, expensive, and peaceful as possible. Think “meditating gourmand”.

Beyond that, though, I’m thinking to blow the dust of this blog and see if I can get ‘er started again. I feel like I’ve said all I can about politics and the dangers of government, and don’t feel like banging my head against that wall anymore … Mr. Gorbatrump ain’t taking it down.

So I guess that leaves the original walking-around-and-snapping-pics-interspersed-with-some-writing thing I used to do with maybe a mix of some of the stuff I’m doing for CypherPoker.JS
(it's that link at the top of the right column)

I mean, that project is mostly responsible for causing me to forsake the blog in the first place but it is a product made 100% in Toronto so maybe it could provide some shareable out-takes.

Besides, the more people that read Toronto City Life the more Memories of Ollie will spread.

My little friend deserved no less.

I’ll miss you so much, dobos!

Love, your friend always,
Patrick and Sarah and Bitty