~Automotive lubricants market~ is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 6.5% during the forecast period (2024-2031). Automotive lubricant is a specialized fluid that reduces friction and wear between moving parts in an automobile's engine and other mechanical components. The growth of the market is attributed to the rising number of passenger vehicles, the expansion of the EV lubricant market, and the increasing need and awareness of vehicle maintenance and repair. Further, the market trends are moving toward the adoption of bio-based lubricants and a shift toward synthetic lubricants.
Get Free Sample link @ https://www.omrglobal.com/request-sample/automotive-lubricants-market
Global vehicle network has steadily grown in recent decades, particularly in emerging markets, owing to rising incomes and standards of living. As more vehicles are on the road, the demand for automotive lubricants for routine maintenance and repair has increased. For instance, as per IBEF India, the passenger car market was valued at $32.7 billion in 2021 and it is expected to reach a value of $54.8 billion by 2027 while registering a CAGR of over 9.0% from 2022-2027. In November 2023, the total production of passenger vehicles, three-wheelers, two-wheelers, and quadricycles was 2.2 million units. In (April-November) 2023-24, the total production of passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, three-wheelers, two-wheelers, and quadricycles was 15.6 million units. Simultaneously, the automobile component industry turnover stood at $56.5 billion from April 2021 to March 2022. The industry had revenue growth of 23.0% as compared to 2018-19. The auto components industry is expected to grow to $200.0 billion by FY26.
full report of Automotive Lubricants Market available @ https://www.omrglobal.com/industry-reports/automotive-lubricants-market
· Market Coverage
· Market number available for – 2024-2031
· Base year- 2024
· Forecast period- 2024-2031
· Segment Covered- By Source, By Product Type, By Applications
· Competitive Landscape- Archer Daniels Midland Co., Ingredion Inc., Kerry Group Plc, Cargill
· Inc., and others
Market Segmentation
Global Automotive Lubricants Market by Oil Type
o Synthetic Lubricants
o Semi-synthetic Lubricants
o Bio-Based Lubricants
o Conventional Lubricants
Global Automotive Lubricants Market by Vehicle
o Passenger Vehicles
o Commercial Vehicles
o Two-Wheeler
Global Automotive Lubricants Market by Product Type
o Engine Oil
o Gear and Brake Oil
o Transmission Fluids
o Greases
o Coolant
Regional Analysis
o North America
o United States
o Canada
o Europe
o UK
o Germany
o Italy
o Spain
o France
o Rest of Europe
o Asia-Pacific
o China
o India
o Japan
o South Korea
o Rest of Asia-Pacific
o Rest of the World
o Latin America
o Middle East and Africa
Company Profiles
o Accu-Lube Manufacturing GmbH.
o Castrol India Ltd.
o Chevron Corp.
o Idemitsu Kosan
o ENEOS Group
o Exxon Mobil Corp.
o Gulf Oil Lubricants Ltd
o Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
o Oscar Lubricants LLC
o Panama Petrochem Ltd.
o R.W. Davis Oil Co.
o Savita Oil Technologies Ltd
o SINOPEC Group
o TRInternational, Inc.
o Valvoline
The Report Covers

• Market value data analysis of 2023 and forecast to 2031.
• Annualized market revenues ($ million) for each market segment.
• Country-wise analysis of major geographical regions.
• Key companies operating in automotive lubricants market. Based on the availability of data, information related to new product launches, and relevant news is also available in the report.
• Analysis of business strategies by identifying the key market segments positioned for strong growth in the future.
• Analysis of market-entry and market expansion strategies.
• Competitive strategies by identifying ‘who-stands-where’ in the market.

For More Customized Data, Request for Report Customization @ https://www.omrglobal.com/report-customization/automotive-lubricants-market
About Orion Market Research Orion Market Research (OMR) is a market research and consulting company known for its crisp and concise reports. The company is equipped with an experienced team of analysts and consultants. OMR offers quality syndicated research reports, customized research reports, consulting and other research-based services. The company also offer Digital Marketing services through its subsidiary OMR Digital and Software development and Consulting Services through another subsidiary Encanto Technologies.
Media Contact:
Company Name: Orion Market Research
Contact Person: Mr. Anurag Tiwari
Email: [info@omrglobal.com](mailto:info@omrglobal.com)
Contact no: +91 780-304-0404

~Space sensor market~ is anticipated to grow at a considerable CAGR of 8.2% during the forecast period (2024-2031). Space sensors market growth is attributed to increasing demand for space sensors in satellite development, expansion in the space exploration market, growing commercial satellite industry, and growing application in defense. The market is highly influenced by investment from state-run organizations for developing and innovating space sensor technology to enhance space and defense capabilities. The major trend in the market includes miniaturization of space sensing technology, demand for remote sensing and observation-based sensing technology, and integration of novel technology such as quantum sensors.
Get Free Sample link @ https://www.omrglobal.com/request-sample/space-sensor-market
The growing need for space-based assets in defense and security is driving demand for sensors in the marketplace. Space sensors are used to monitor, acquire intelligence, and provide early warning systems. Satellites equipped with high-resolution optical sensors, synthetic aperture radar SARs, or other advanced imaging technologies provide critical intelligence data for monitoring potential threats, assessing military operations, and obtaining strategic information on a timely basis. Also, hypersonic missiles and ballistic missile systems leverage space sensors to work. For instance, in January 2024, the Space Development Agency granted L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, and Sierra Space $2.5 billion for 54 satellites in its new missile warning and missile tracking (MW/MT) and missile defense networks. The MW/MT satellites are designed to detect and track missile launches from orbit using infrared sensors with a large field of view. The missile defense satellites will have a mix of wide and medium-field-of-view infrared sensors to provide high-quality fire control tracks, assisting ground forces to intercept missiles.
full report of Space Sensors Market available @[ https://www.omrglobal.com/industry-reports/space-sensor-market](%20https:/www.omrglobal.com/industry-reports/space-sensor-market)
· Market Coverage
· Market number available for – 2024-2031
· Base year- 2024
· Forecast period- 2024-2031
· Segment Covered- By Source, By Product Type, By Applications
· Competitive Landscape- Archer Daniels Midland Co., Ingredion Inc., Kerry Group Plc, Cargill
· Inc., and others
Market Segmentation
Global Space Sensors Market by Type
o IMU Sensors
o GPS Sensors
o Star Sensors
o Optical Sensors
o Synthetic Aperture Radar Sensors
o Pressure Sensors
o Temperature Sensors
o Others (Vibration Sensors, Gas Sensors)
Global Space Sensors Market by Platform
o Satellites
o Space Station & Testing Probes
o Rovers/Spacecraft Landers
o Launch Vehicle
Global Space Sensors Market by End-User
o Civil
o Commercial
o Defense
Regional Analysis
o North America
o United States
o Canada
o Europe
o UK
o Germany
o Italy
o Spain
o France
o Rest of Europe
o Asia-Pacific
o China
o India
o Japan
o South Korea
o Rest of Asia-Pacific
o Rest of the World
o Latin America
o Middle East and Africa
Company Profiles
o InnaLabs Ltd. Analog Devices, Inc.
o Bradford Engineering BV
o CEDRAT TECHNOLOGIES
o InnaLabs Ltd.
o L3Harris Technologies Inc.
o Moog Inc.
o MinebeaMitsumi Inc.
o Safran S.A.
o Sierra Nevada Corp
o STMicroelectronics NV.
o Teledyne Technologies Inc.
o Texas Instruments Inc.
o Raytheon Technologies Corp.
o Renesas Electronics Corp.
o UAG Group
The Report Covers

• Market value data analysis of 2023 and forecast to 2031.
• Annualized market revenues ($ million) for each market segment.
• Country-wise analysis of major geographical regions.
• Key companies operating in space sensors market. Based on the availability of data, information related to new product launches, and relevant news is also available in the report.
• Analysis of business strategies by identifying the key market segments positioned for strong growth in the future.
• Analysis of market-entry and market expansion strategies.
• Competitive strategies by identifying ‘who-stands-where’ in the market.

For More Customized Data, Request for Report Customization @ https://www.omrglobal.com/report-customization/space-sensor-market About Orion Market Research Orion Market Research (OMR) is a market research and consulting company known for its crisp and concise reports. The company is equipped with an experienced team of analysts and consultants. OMR offers quality syndicated research reports, customized research reports, consulting and other research-based services. The company also offer Digital Marketing services through its subsidiary OMR Digital and Software development and Consulting Services through another subsidiary Encanto Technologies.
Media Contact:
Company Name: Orion Market Research
Contact Person: Mr. Anurag Tiwari
Email: [info@omrglobal.com](mailto:info@omrglobal.com)
Contact no: +91 780-304-0404

The food Market is expected to reach US$ 3.10 billion . by 2029, at a CAGR of 5.83% during the forecast period.

Market Overview

The global Food Coating market has been analyzed in detail to provide insights into the most recent revenue and market trends. This comprehensive industry report includes a thorough market definition, overview, and structure, compiling primary and secondary data to ensure authenticity and accuracy.
Free sample link: https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/request-sample/75927billion https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/request-sample/75927

Market Report Scope and Research Methodology

The report delves into the latest trends within each sub-segment of the food coating market, examining revenue growth at local, regional, and global levels. It offers a qualitative and quantitative overview of the industry, focusing on global trends and key statistics related to market competitors. Moreover, the report includes a detailed analysis of market dynamics, encompassing drivers, restraints, opportunities, and challenges, serving as a valuable guide for investors. A SWOT analysis is also incorporated to identify the strengths and weaknesses of key players in the industry.
The report combines primary and secondary data collected through thorough research, investigating factors such as government policies, market environment, historical data, competitive landscape, current market trends, technological advancements, and upcoming technologies. The methodology employed a bottom-up approach to estimate the global market size, while Porter's five forces and PESTLE analyses facilitate an understanding of the market from various perspectives.

Market Regional Insights

The report segments several key countries, including:

• North America: the United States, Canada, and Mexico
• Europe: the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and rest of Europe
• Asia Pacific: China, India, Japan, Australia, South Korea, ASEAN countries, and rest of APAC
• South America: Brazil
• Middle East and Africa

For each country, the report provides data on market size, growth rate, importsand exports.

Market Segmentation

by Ingredient Type
Cocoa & Chocolate Fats & Oils Flours Breaders Batter Sugars & Syrups Salts, Spices, and Seasonings Others
by Ingredient Form
Dry Liquid
by Equipment Type
Coaters & Applicators Breader Applicators Flour Applicators Batter Applicators Seasoning Applicators Other Coaters & Applicators Enrobers
Mode of Operation
Automatic Semi-Automatic
by Application
Meat & Seafood Products Confectionery Products Bakery Products Bakery Cereals Snacks

Market Key Players

Key questions addressed in the report cover the definition of Food Coating, the expected CAGR during the forecast period, anticipated market size by the end of the forecast period, prominent players in the market, emerging trends, factors restraining market growth, and regional markets expected to grow significantly in the forecast period.

1. Cargill
2. Kerry Group
3. Archer Daniels Midland Company
4. Ingredion Incorporated
5. JBT Corporation
6. Tate & Lyle PLC
7. PGP International
8. Newly Wed Foods
9. Bowmen Ingredients 10.Marel 11.GEA Group 12.Buhler AG 13.Dohler GmbH
10. Sensory Effects (Balchem Corporation)
11. DPS/Dutch Protein & Services B.V.
12. McCormick & Company, Inc.
13. Continental Mills, Inc. 18.TNA Australia Pty Limited 19.Dumoulin

For More Details: https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/global-food-coating-market/75927/17. Continentalhttps://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/global-food-coating-market/75927/

Key Offerings

The key offerings of the report include past market size and competitive landscape, past pricing trends, market size, share, forecast by segments, market dynamics, market segmentation, competitive landscape, PESTLE analysis, PORTER’s analysis, value chain analysis, legal aspects by region, lucrative business opportunities with SWOT analysis, and actionable recommendations for market players.
About Maximize Market Research: Maximize Market Research is a reputable market research and consulting company comprised of professionals from diverse industries. Their expertise ranges across various sectors, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, engineering, technology, automotive, and more. They offer a range of services, from market estimations to competition analysis, technical trend monitoring, and strategic advice.
Contact Maximize Market Research:
3rd Floor, Navale IT Park, Phase 2 Pune-Banglore Highway, Narhe, Pune, Maharashtra 411041, India Email: [sales@maximizemarketresearch.com](mailto:sales@maximizemarketresearch.com) Phone: +91 96071 95908, +91 9607365656Maharashtra,

Homeworld 3 is on track to becoming my least favorite HW game. Is it terrible? No. Is it great? Also no. Is it *good*? Eeeh... also no, not really. But it's also not bad. It's very mid.
Homeworld 3 *definitely* does not have the original’s gripping story or sense of mystery and player freedom.
It also does not have Cataclysm’s incredibly rewarding rags-to-riches feeling.
It also also does not have Homeworld 2’s polished gameplay.
And it also does not have Desert’s of Kharak fresh new take on the genre and franchise.
It’s okay. That’s about it.
Visuals and UI
It's stunningly beautiful, like every HW game. Space is gorgeous, filled with visual spectacle and lovingly detailed ships and environments (though frankly, space battles in this game are visually far less impressive than any previous installment). I'm not a sound guy so I have very little to say except that for my money the sound design is actually more impressive than the graphics. Everything from explosions to weapon effects to the background chatter sounds lovely.
UI is clunky as hell, I'm about six hours in and I'm still not friends with the camera and I can never orient myself quickly. Ships often feel like they're not responding to orders – I might be wrong, but I find myself going back to double-check that I definitely ordered those corvettes to guard that frigate etc. It feels much more micro-managey than previous installments.
Gameplay
Lots of features introduced in HW2 are gone: Fighters and corvettes no longer belong to squads, you’re back to each fighter being an individual unit. Modules are gone – you don’t build certain types of sensors or research modules or cloaks or fire control modules etc. I’ve not played around with carriers much yet but it seems they also come out of the construction bay completely finished, without any additions you can make, unlike in HW2 where you could specialize them. If there is an equivalent to the Research Module from HW1 or any other way to affect research speed or to give you more options the game hasn't introduced it yet (I'm on mission 8).
The number of units in the game also seems a little disappointing. I've unlocked three types of fighters, four types of frigates and at least one capital ship but only one type of corvette? Leads me to believe there only is one type, which would be very disappointing.
Minor detail but the ship design is for the most part really dull, too. Even quite closely zoomed in it's hard to distinguish one ship from another - their silhouettes just blend together.
In short, HW3 has less choices you can make and much more to keep you constantly busy.
The game takes a lot of liberties with player agency: They've opted to remove the option to let you decide when you’re done with one level and proceed to the next. Unlike previous games (at least unlike HW1 and Cata) once you complete the last mission objective you enter a cutscene and the level ends. No time to gather resources or replace casualties taken.
One of the missions also takes a break for the Mothership to be repaired off-screen and when you are put back into control the game gives you a bunch of mine-laying corvettes, defense turrets and a carrier - units you've not researched, not built and that the game decided you should have for the next mission. The mission after that provides you with a small fleet of ships to conduct a raid – you have no hand in selecting these ships, they’re not taken from your own fleet, they’re just magicked into existence because the game decided you needed them for the story. I've been told there's a custom difficulty setting that changes this - why in the hell you make that setting the default is beyond me.
Disappointing for a game series that used to let you build your own fleet more or less uninstructed and make it work (or not) on your own terms.
In 1998 this gameplay was fine (although better executed) and in 2003 the sequel gave it a much-needed polish that honestly holds up OK to this day, imo. But HW3 has regressed back to what HW1 did in ’98 and then stripped off some of the polish so beware this plays like a very dated game.
Story
The story is a bit messy - though this isn't entirely its fault. HW2 already made a mess of the story of this world. The motivation for you being in control of *another* mothership and once again being given a mighty starting host of a Resource Collector and five scouts despite the Hiigarans by now being major galactic player is no more or less ham-fisted than it was in HW2. HW2 was the game who leaned fully into mysticism and Chosen One prophecies and muddled up the genre, can't really blame HW3 for not course-correcting.
However the game is *way* too in love with exposition dumping. One mission involves navigating the Mothership through an asteroid field and am not kidding when I say that playing through the mission only took marginally longer than the cutscene once I reached the end. It was five minutes if not more. The cutscenes are gorgeous and the voice acting great, but they end up becoming more distracting than rewarding. They also do not go at all for the classic Homeworld look, nor do they attempt for a twist on them like Deserts of Kharak; they’re just pre-rendered full-on cutscenes with people carrying out full conversations to advance the plot.
Honestly I half-expected for there to be a dialogue wheel after a while. The plot is fairly unsurprising so far. Everything is just very predictable and uninspired.
The story focuses on Imogen S'Jet, a descendant of Karan S'Jet. I didn't mind this switch in narrative to follow single individuals so clearly in Deserts of Kharak because that game felt so different overall (in a good way, I very much enjoyed DoK); a prequel not set in space exploring Kushan society rather than Hiigaran society like Cata did. But in a full-blown 'proper' Homeworld game I much prefer the inner workings of the ships to be a little more mysterious and up to the imagination, and for the story to follow the epic tale of *a people*, not of *persons*.
Conclusion
I backed this game on Fig years ago and I’m glad I did – if I’d paid €59 for it now and gotten it in the state it’s in I’d have felt cheated. I can’t comment on the Multiplayer or the War Mode – I only really play HW for the Singleplayer Campaigns.
Fans of Homeworld *might* enjoy it if they go in with low expectations. New players will probably find this game enjoyable enough, if a little basic and clunky to play. Neither should pay €59 for it, though.
Presentation - stunning. Gameplay – disappointing. Story - meh. 6/10

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

This is a list of FAQ and repeated topics that appear on this sub. Please either read this before posting, or read this as you've likely been directed here from a post removal.
This will be updated every now and then, so please keep an eye out for this thread.
QUESTIONS:
Q: Am I being scammed?/Is this a scam?
A: Read the scam FAQ here.
Q: How long should I wait for a seller to ship?/Seller has taken _ days to ship, what should I do?/When should I open a case?
A: Sellers are required to ship within 7 days. If it goes over 7 days, contact them and ask them about shipping. If you get ignored, blocked or they still don't ship, open a case with Depop. DO NOT WAIT LONGER THAN 30 DAYS.
Q: How do I open a case?
A: At the bottom of your receipt.
Q: How do I get in contact with Depop?
A: You can send Depop an email via their help desk. Otherwise, contact them on twitter at @askdepop.
Q: Can I sell fakes on Depop?
A: Selling fakes anywhere is illegal.
Q: I was sold fakes, what do I do?
A: Open a case. As selling fakes is illegal, you'll get your refund.
Q: Why am I getting lowball offers/Why do people lowball?
Everyone always wants a deal and wants to pay as little as possible, so frequently people will push to get the item as cheap as they can. It can be frustrating, but this is common on pretty much every online selling/markerplace app.
Q: Why do buyers not buy when I accept their offers?
A: There's no way to know someone's thinking behind this. Could be they were trolling, bored, found another item or changed their mind. Offers are not binding so as annoying as it may be, a buyer is not obliged to buy your item even if you accepted their offer.
Q: Buyer wants to change their address, what do they do?
A: Refund them, then let them change their details and repurchase.
Q: Why isn't my item selling?/Why is no one buying my items?
A: There's a number of reasons why your item isn't selling. It could be the algorithm, your photos, your description etc. Search tips and tricks in the subreddit about selling or use the shop critique thread if you need more help.
Q: Why do people upcharge Shein/Aliexpress items?
A: Because it's an easy way to make money, and although it's scummy, it isn't against Depop's rules.
‎
REPEATED TOPICS:
T: Discussions about offers, lowball offers, people not accepting offers
A: As stated before, lowball offers are a common occurrence on Depop and repeated topics about such add nothing to the community.
T: Discussions about shein/aliexpress dropshippers
A: It's common knowledge that people on selling apps, especially Depop, frequently upcharge cheap/fast fashion clothes.
T: Depop is down
A: The mods will create a megathread if Depop is down. If you believe Depop is down, search the subreddit and sort by "new" to see if others are experiencing it as well before making a post.

I didn’t do it. I didn’! I didn’t! I’m no murderer, no, listen! I will tell you your a killer. You do not believe me? Even for a moment? But little is my own sentence even a concern for me, the freedom in society has little left to offer me. Grief and horror are all that fill my mind, the only residents remaining in my home. And you’d expect it to be such an oppressing grief. But no, no, no…it is much more the horror. It is much more the intense fear, the great disgusting and evil works that wait for me in the dark. The grizzly voice that reassures me of fate in its worst forms. It is here now. Cackling at its maniacal work. I hear it. What are you worth wretch! You’ll burn all your years and infinite more! But forgive me, my anger is difficult to suppress against my enemy. He lingers still. A lover of deception however, would be a fool in his own craft to reveal his intentions. Thus, would be a fool to reveal their own horrid form. Therefore, relinquish some of your repulsion of me, so that you may have at least some possibility of belief in what I say. I understand the situation I’m in, but why should I refrain from telling the truth simply because it is unlikely you will believe me? Especially when you condemn me? Listen then!
I was watching television, and my roommate was out the entirety of this night. My family remained in Los Angeles during this time, so they are not making any affect on what occurred. But you want me to tell of my roommate? I am telling you! You ask about the murderer, so you must listen to all I know of him. It was in the most ordinary of circumstances and activity when such a striking and alarming voice pierced the room. The TV was quiet, and I lounged about with dull mind. When I heard someone call for my name from down the hall, whom which I couldn’t see since the door was closed, I of course simply responded, “Yeah?” This was the very first of the remarkable experiences I began to have. I realized what had just occurred. I was home alone, so who could be calling to me from my own room? Well I suspected then my roommate. But I had trouble reconciling the voice I heard with that of my roommate. It had such an eerie tone to it. Almost as if it were teasing me. Yet, it was such a convincing and deceptive call, that the mocking tone it had was almost imperceivable. As if maybe this creepy inflection was a result of my own nerves or unfamiliarity with the event.
Regardless of it’s true nature, this odd quality roused my attention. Was I indeed not alone? But then it must be my roommate, since it was my name. I could not get over the gross friendly tone it called to me with. It’s as if it was bragging about knowing my name. I froze for a moment with the TV playing, listening for another call. “Javier” a woman's voice called out gently and compassionately. But such disgusting compassion did it call out. It seems it couldn’t itself disguise just the slightest hint of malevolence that just snuck under the tone. Or perhaps it meant to say it how it did. But it terrified me. I reasoned it must be somebody I know. But I couldn’t bear the action of getting up looking around. I was simply frozen, wishing not to move and cause myself to miss out on hearing more by making a racket myself. it didn’t even come from behind the door, it was as if it was somewhere far away. Yet it was so clear and punctual in volume.
This left me more at unease and helpless to find a solution. This time I did not respond. I greatly regretted responding the first time. I only paused the TV and looked about myself anxiously, dreading that something would speak again. After many moments of silence, I compromised to rest from my alert. And as the words spoke drifted deeper into the past, the simple abnormality of them caused them to resist their place in my mind as credibly existing. Though it happened not long ago that same hour, I questioned if I did indeed hear a call out for my name in such a mysterious and ugly tone as I had. This was just before the most morbid of calls occurred. It spoke to my name again, “Would you come, Javier?” But such terror came over me in that delicately rude and friendly tone which it spoke to me in. The suspense and anticipation for the call was intensely surmised to a realization as my heart began a sprint. This voice was not just a woman's, it was my sister. How incredibly unlikely she would be here, unannounced and somehow in my home without my knowledge. I still held intense fear, for you must understand the uncanny sense from this call. It was as if someone was inciting their vocals and tone to imitate or mock a human. It seemed not as if they were doing an impression of my sister—no, for it sounded exactly like my sister—but instead it seemed as if they attempted an impression of a human. Such a perfect quality, yet just so slightly imperfect that I may subconsciously perceive something wasn’t quite genuine in this call. I darted my perceptions across the room wide eyed. I quickly looked about myself, checking behind me multiple times.
Now, the following details not only enhance the unbelievable notions of my current situation, but may in fact completely discredit me in even speaking about them. But you must hear it! I implore you to imagine this! It is the truth—all of what I say is. For the night I heard her—my sister that is—speak to me in my own apartment, was the same night, as I learned weeks later, is the same night she had died. Sophia, that is her name, had killed herself.
Many nights passed like this when I was alone. I was tormented by calls with no direction or location. I shuddered at creepy voices beckoning in the dark. Sometimes, even in daylight, things spoke to me while I was alone. Unrelenting and disturbing voices within my home. Now, you may presume at this moment I am clearly schizophrenic. Indeed, I too had this notion. I seeked a psychiatrist during this time, to which medicine was prescribed and an indefinite period of shipping as well. But I perceived far too many REAL things. Yes, these could be hallucinations, but you couldn’t possibly have that conclusion if you hear what else this has done to me.
It happened after many terrible nights that I heard of my sister’s death. I was very shocked at first. But sadness was not next door, grief did not have time to move in. Instead, a realization taunted and teased my peace. I would hear her tonight, speaking to me. You may not imagine the dread that filled my day. I went to work and back home as a zombie. The tasks and conversations passed me by as dreams. I was incredibly absent and void of presence in my own life. My head spun before it comprehended any purpose of grief and despair. When I returned home I found myself double, triple checking that the lights were on and the blinds shut. Even though these things were clearly in my sight. I also locked doors and called my roommate to make sure he was home. I begged and pleaded with him, but he only brushed me off telling me he can't ditch his shift. I paced back and forth within the rooms pitching the plan to myself to have a hotel room. I eventually settled on this as it brought peace to me. And that night passed, at least before I slept, how I hoped. My sister did not speak to me from the darkness. But woe had not stopped its intention upon me that night.
I managed to fall asleep. In my dreams that night, I was visited with a vivid nightmare. I stood in my childhood home waiting at the door with a bat in my hand, standing between my sister and the entrance. I had this feeling that something bad was going to happen, and that I had to protect her, though nothing in particular was occurring. Then, with a gentle creek, a clawed hand reached and pushed the front door gently open. A demonically horned monstrosity stepped into the room. Its hooves clopped upon the wood floor. I intended to combat it, but my muscles took no command from me, and I swung the bat as if I was in molasses. It lunged with a deep roar to my sister, digging its hands into her stomach and viciously tearing it open with ease. It dug through her chest cavity as a dog digs holes in the dirt, spewing and tossing guts and organs out slashed and mutilated. I stood helpless and disgusted, until it turned towards me. It dropped my sister to the ground like a doll it no longer wanted to play with. It approached and grasped me tightly, growling a deep animalistic anger, its stature looming over me. It took its claw and dug it into its own eye, slicing it and tearing it open. It leaned over me, inches from my face. I screamed in horror. Black blood seeped and dripped from its swollen socket into my mouth. I struggled ferociously but the blood continuously poured from its eye into me.
I awoke sweating in pitch black, feeling Intense fear in myself. As a child that had not had their night light. I was terrified of the thought of something being in the darkness. I knew I was awake, and I was in a hotel in the middle of the night, but my heart started racing in irrational fear. I didn’t even have the courage to lift my head and look about the room to satiate the tormenting curiosity in the mystery of a possible supernatural visitor. But, I did. There was a demon sitting on the chair. A darker than dark silhouette of someone sitting hunched, looking at me. It was a shadow. But I knew, even then, this was a devil. I felt it. The blood in my skin fell away. I was mortified; in absolute terror. I stared unmoving with my heart beating out of my chest at this figure.
I slowly began to hold disdain for it. It did not move, it did not speak. But, I was beginning to be relieved of my fear. Instead, it was replaced with hate. Burning, mean hate. I hated it. No, I abhorred it. I was angry. The most intense rage fell upon me. I stood up from my bed, looking about the darkness. I stomped and clenched my fists. Captured in the most ridiculous delusion of fury, I began yelling and thrashing my room. I broke vases and electronics. I smashed the TV to the ground. I bit and gnawed at the chair leg which the thing sat on. I flipped the mattress and kicked doors off their hinges. I scratched and tore pillows like a feline. I was filled with so much hate and anger. I remained like this until hotel staff came to subdue me. Which, at their arrival, the feeling subsided suddenly.
I now was plagued daily by these voices, and nightly by this demon. The visits were not as dramatic as the first, but still, It watched me from different places in the dark each time. All it did was sit there. Weeks passed like this, I lost tremendous amounts of sleep attending to fruitless solutions and avoidances. Either I slept not a wink the night and evaded my tormentor, save for the voices if I’m alone, or I had to face my tormentor in the midst of night with a bravery I did not possess, awoken by various nightmares or visions designed for me that night.
But this is merely his entrance, I must now speak of the acquaintance he made with me. It was another terrible midnight where I stared at it, in whichever spot it had chose for the night, contemplating the nature of such a gross presence and its effect on me. When, filled with a ridiculous exhaustion and exhasperation, I called out to it, “What do you want!” I saw a slight twitch in its head, which struck me with more surprise than fear, although I had both. “Do you know me?” It spoke in a low and growled voice. It had such a tone of malevolence and mocking speech, it even felt as if it spoke condescendingly, as if I was a child it was reducing to. “No.” I said, my breath failing me. “I knew your sister.” The demon stated with a snicker, which developed into a chuckle, then an intense and hearty laugh. He wailed and howled in laughter even, he sounded insane. Such a disgusting sound it was to hear its voice in the darkness so pleased with itself. It confused and frustrated me in fear greatly, and it became so loud and went on for so long I couldn’t stand it. “Shut up!” I yelled finally. It stopped laughing immediately. “But you know Javier, you know me too.” It spoke very seriously. I stared in bewilderment. “You’re guilty! You’re guilty! You love murder! Haha! You love yourself! You stroke huh?” The demon spoke without relent and enjoyed his own hilarity. “What the fuck?” I said in a trembled whisper. “Yea, you hate clothes, you little pathetic bitch.” It cackled.
I was roused again with the most extreme and unimaginable anger. I yelled my defense at him. He grew in laughter. I screamed any kind of profanity and slur I could think of at his station, and he only grew in volume with me. This went on until I finally arrived at my king accusation, which was finally enough to have it stir, “You’re a failure of creation!” He was silent for a moment. “What is it you know of creation?” It spoke with such a terrible and tremendous tone. “Are you worth any more than me? You’re subject to death the same. I’m a connoisseur of freedoms, yet, what are you? You are a slave of fear, scared of your own desires. And, even more so, subject to me.. As much as a mouse loses its life to the metal spring when it grabs cheese, so do you spoil by me.” “You speak nonsense!” I retorted “You’re very stupid, it’s difficult for you to grasp.”
Then, without much more deliberation, it simply began roaring with the most horrific and inhumane noises. It began screeching—it screeched with blood curdling yells and sorrow. It screamed as if it was lit on fire. At once, in the shadows, it began clawing at its own face. I heard sounds of ripping and tearing—with noises as if pounds of deli meat were slammed onto the cutting board. This was accompanied by an intense and putrid smell of rot, and I began weeping. This experience was more than I could bare, and I couldn’t describe to u what was unnaturally filled in my mind. This night felt as if i was never going to escape the moment, like the present moment was my eternity. This sight annoyed me to my soul for what seemed like hours, and I even conjectured to myself that this torture was eternal.
But soon, he did indeed cease. A gentle glow of orange illuminated the end of my bed. He stood before me, tall and with elegance in the light. He was skinned, his jaw dislocated, his face scratched bare and raw so that no features were pertruding. He was completely nude, with hooves and fur patches among his disfigured appearances. He wore this boldly with shame, yet, overcame it with overwhelming pride.
Such beauty it was to admire his stature. I could not help but gaze with wonder and pleasure. I must have admired him for a while, perhaps even hours. I became mad with lust for him, such a delicious sight he was! I should give up my other fruitless endeavors of life if I could just have the delight to taste him.
But just as I settled on my prospective bliss, my roommate entered the room. His yell of terror attacked my ears, interrupting us. Why scream? Why that hideous look on his face? What was he so scared of? What possessed him to be worthy of beholding any sort of indignation upon my beautiful companion? A little worm—that ugly little leech that dared breath the same air as us. “Get rid of it.” The demon told me, but I hardly needed a command to conceive of my goal.
Oh, what fun I had! It was like the first fresh sip of lemonade on a summer day! Like the sunshine that seeps through window seals—like the birds chirping in the dewy mornings. Like the adrenaline of a rollercoaster—the tickle of a drop. Like the intoxication that gives you belief of so much confidence. And to feel it on my hands? It was the joy of a child when he smashes his fingers into the moist sand—that innocent satisfaction of destroying a castle. Like the excitement of opening your favorite bag of chips—grabbing the ends and pulling the plastic with might until bursts open with goodies; yes, that’s what it was like for me to stick my thumbs deep into his eye sockets, and pull to open—if only I could. It was such, as when I bit down on his throat with all my might and sipped. It was indeed so, when I scratched and clawed till my nails came off, opening his chest and pulling at ribs like discarded hot wings, ripping at organs and intestines, pulling of nails, bending fingers two loops around, snapping his arms, smashing his head with my foot—but again my happiness was destroyed. For my companion had fled the scene, and he was no longer present. At once, I recovered some coherence and realized the tragedy of what I had done. How would I hide this? How could I discard of blood evidence all over me? How was he going to chip in on rent in this condition? I obviously had not calculated all the required considerations before doing such a thing. I was enraged by the black magic possessed by the demon, stupid, tricky, evil thing. So you see, it was his fault.

Received an email from AtmosGear stating I only paid 50€ for shipping but need to pay another 50€. Does anybody recall if the preorder stated shipping was 100€? My receipt does not state this and it feels like I am being asked for another 50€ simply because costs and the project experienced unforeseen circumstances.

First off I want to say I have been one of the defenders of the game, and I'm glad I was, because it's an excellent game now, and it's only going to get better.
The main controversy is of course, exploration.
It's controversial only because people expect certain things from a Bethesda game, like a dedicated world map to explore. And in this game which is brand new IP - there is no world map.
Let's just state that again, because as far as I can tell, it is not sinking in for most people.
Starfield has no world map.
Todd gave an interview recently (Kinda Funny) and Bryan gave an interview near launch (MinMax) and in both those interviews if you listen carefully they said what effectively amounts to exploration not being the priority with Starfield.
Procgen is side content. You are not meant to explore these generic procgen tiles as a replacement for the Boston Commonwealth or Skyrim. It couldn't possibly be that...
If you literally click a random pixel on a planet, generate the procgen tile, then go and painstakingly study every rock on that tile, there is a very good chance (roughly 100%) that you will get bored. Bethesda could not possibly have intended you to do that. My opinion is they let people think it was an exploration game because of corporate pressure from above, it's bad PR if Todd had outright said "it's not an exloration game - stick with Fallout if you want that."
So, if Starfield can be called an exploration game at all (and it's debatable) then here is my (possibly eccentric) interpretation of how exploration is supposed to be done. At this point, I'm going to sound a bit patronizing but I want to be clear I am not insulting anyones intelligence, I also want this to be a mini guide for newbys to the game so they don't get confused and disillusioned like so many have. Bethesda probably made the game too open, but as Todd said in his last interview (Kinda Funny) they "want the game to say yes to you."
Ok, so the main exploration in Starfield is done from the cockpit - except - it's actually done through the menu...
Yeah, you go to the Star Map, click on a random star and jump to it. From there you have a look in your System Map (one level down from Star Map) and you are looking for these little encounter markers on the map. There is a ship, asteroids, sensor contact, hostile activity... Possibly others, and no doubt more will be added. You then fly to it and have the encounter.
Also, if you look at planets and moons, notice some have three dots (...) on them - that means there is a POI on that planet pre populated for you to investigate. Sometimes it is a civilian structure (fracking, outpost), sometimes it is a structure defended by a hostile faction (abondoned weapons lab, etc). You then land at it, take a good look around at the lovely planet tile (and that's it... not spend 16hrs exploring...) go to your POI, murder everyone and go...
So, from that, you can say that it is primarily about space exploration which then potentially advances into on-foot exploration. This approach requires you to self-moderate your gameplay...
Look at it another way. I am not very knowledgable about Sci Fi generally but one show I have watched a lot was Star Trek Next Generation. I think Starfield gameplay is meant to flow like Next Generation...
Picard says "warp to..." there is a cutscene of the ship warping - another of the ship reaching it's destination... The crew member says "sir, our scans show..." - Picard says "hmm... let's investiate - divert power to shields..." cutscene of the ship leaving destination - and of the ship arriving at it's new destination with the encounter in front of them...
If they go down to the surface it's "beam me down..." then when they arrive, you take in the vista of the alien world - but only for a moment - not for 20 hours... otherwise it'll get boring... After they scan or shoot stuff, they say "beam me up" and they are back on the ship drinking boba tea.
So the procgen tile serves the following purposes, in order:
-Visual background for the poi you spotted from space.
-Area for you to build your outpost on.
-Area for surveying.-
-Area for random exploration.
So in my opinion people exploring the tiles were basically "playing it wrong." Now you could come back and say "ahh but Bethesda are the developer, it's is their job to guide the player, etc" I won't argue with any of that. The fact that there was so much controversy certainly implies that Bethesda did something wrong.
But let's look at what they did right? If you like exploring the POI's, and I consider them among Bethesda's best work. Then you can do the above method or even better, take the radiant quests from the Mission Boards and it actually tells you which POI the enemy is occupying. I have a spreadsheet and I'm working my way through the POIs. I take the bounty only if it is situated at a POI that I haven't visited or feel like doing. The POIs are incredibly well designed, in my opinion.
So with all that said, how do I think this system can be improved upon? And as I said, I reject the idea of the game being fundamentally broken - that is just people who wish it was Fallout 4 or Skyrim. They wish they were playing a different type of game. Well, God did not command Bethesda to make pure open-world exploration games centred on a dedicated world map. They made a different type of game, perhaps it requires a different mental approach... I admit, in order to enjoy STarfield I have to self-moderate my play a bit...
Ok, here are my suggestions.
1. Have a fixed position for all the POI's, spread accross the galaxy. So you can definitely find them all.
2. Give all POI's and varients unique names (not simply "Civilian Outpost").
3. Have a compendium, captains log, library - something, to chronicle your exploration.
4. Make it possible to grav-jump without entering the menu, with a hotkey - and be notified if there are encounters.
5. Make ship modules like brig and infirmary work, and fuel costs (already available via mods).
tldr; Starfield is not Fallout. If you are playing it like Fallout - you ARE playing it wrong.

Hi, I’ve been thinking about setting up a pc sometime in the next two months. I want to use it mainly for work but at the same time still play games like Elden Ring in FHD or HD.

What will you be doing with this PC? Be as specific as possible, and include specific games or programs you will be using.

A lot of coding, and playing games like Elden ring on the side.

What is your maximum budget before rebates/shipping/taxes?

1500-2200

When do you plan on building/buying the PC? Note: beyond a week or two from today means any build you receive will be out of date when you want to buy.

In 2-3 months

What, exactly, do you need included in the budget? (ToweOS/monitokeyboard/mouse/etc)

A full engronmic setup, I also plan to use it as a personal server.

Which country (and state/province) will you be purchasing the parts in? If you're in US, do you have access to a Microcenter location?

Canada

If reusing any parts (including monitor(s)/keyboard/mouse/etc), what parts will you be reusing? Brands and models are appreciated.

Maybe my current keyboard. It is a simple microsoft work keyboard

Will you be overclocking? If yes, are you interested in overclocking right away, or down the line? CPU and/or GPU?

No, maybe down the line both CPU and GPU

Are there any specific features or items you want/need in the build? (ex: SSD, large amount of storage or a RAID setup, CUDA or OpenCL support, etc)

I don’t really know what features I need as of now but for storage. 1TB SSD is fine with 32GB RAM. A RAID setup will be appreciated

Do you have any specific case preferences (Size like ITX/microATX/mid-towefull-tower, styles, colors, window or not, LED lighting, etc), or a particular color theme preference for the components?

LED lighting

Do you need a copy of Windows included in the budget? If you do need one included, do you have a preference?

No

Extra info or particulars:

1. What will you be doing with this PC? Primarily gaming but I tend to watch YouTube and Netflix while I game to relax. I usually play games that aren't that intense comparatively but my most taxing games would be a heavily molded Minecraft, baldurs gate 3, Total War Warhammer 3, and Crusader Kings 3.
   
2. What is your maximum budget before rebates/shipping/taxes? 3k is my limit with a little wiggle room.
   
3. When do you plan on building/buying the PC? The end of the month is when I'll be getting the funds
   
4. What, exactly, do you need? I already have a monitor and speakers, I'm giving my old computer to my wife since she's never had a PC.
   
5. Which country (and state/province) will you be purchasing the parts in? I'm in the USA in Virginia but I'm hours away from the nearest Microcenter
   
   1. If reusing any parts (including monitor(s)/keyboard/mouse/etc), what parts will you be reusing? My monitor I'm keeping is a Viotek 29" curved.
6. Will you be overclocking? If yes, are you interested in overclocking right away, or down the line? CPU and/or GPU?** It's doubtful, I have never had any need for it.
   
7. Are there any specific features or items you want/need in the build? (ex: SSD, large amount of storage or a RAID setup, CUDA or OpenCL support, etc) 2x 2TB ssd is what I have now it's plenty.
   
8. Do you have any specific case preferences? I really like the Hyte y70 or Hyte y60 touch and the Thermaltake tower 300. I prefer it to be all black.
   
9. Do you need a copy of Windows included in the budget? If you do need one included, do you have a preference? I do, and I have no preference
   

The few things I'm specifically looking for are
A. A computer that will not need replacing in the next decade+.
B. I love the look of the LCD screen on the kraken elite 360
C. I'm an RGB whore. I have no problem spending extra money for purely cosmetics I want this to also be a show piece as well.

[First Contact] [Dark Ages] [First] [Prev] [Next] [wiki]
The annoying sound of her comlink made Angela Angus Kusumoto open her eyes.
All she saw was the firm, smooth flesh of Kimoko's thigh.
Groaning, she pushed the other woman's leg off of her face, twisted to get Raul off of her own legs, then wiggled out from under Geoff.
The ringer kept going, flashing the red pulses that let her know it was urgent.
As if the fact her unlisted encrypted and non-network accessible comlink was ringing wasn't enough to let her know that it was urgent.
She stumbled, tripping over Harker's leg, which just made the male shift and mutter, tightening his sleeping grip on Liselle, who sighed and wiggled into the embrace.
Angela's mouth tasted terrible and she stopped to grab a fizzybrew, checking to make sure nobody had dropped a cig butt into it or spit chaw into it, then she took a long drink off of it.
It helped cure the fire in her belly and wash out the taste from her mouth.
She saw the ID of the caller and held back a groan.
Senior Supervisor Bisa-2291873.
Her direct supervisor.
She picked up the comlink, running one hand through her pixie-cut hair to try to tame it. She could feel the stiffness of something crusted in her hair and held back a chuckle and a grin.
"Kusumoto here," she said, activating the link.
"I need you at Master Control," Ms. Bisa said. She was holding a small infant, bouncing it slightly as she patted its back with firm impacts as it cry/sobbed and kicked its little feet.
"The system's been crashed for a week, what's so important you'd call me in during my R&R?" Angela asked.
"System's back online. We've got an open line to Terra and we have an open line to Smokey Cone," Ms. Bisa said.
The infant gave a loud belch that rattled Angela's comlink speaker, then sighed and relaxed.
Angela nodded, fumbling on the table for a quiksober inhaler.
"That anomolous signal is back. It showed up right as the entire system underwent a hard reboot," Ms. Bisa said. "I need you up here to check the network interface logs and do a network mapping trace."
The quiksober burned as she inhaled it, her lungs aching and tingling as the chemicals crossed the air to blood barrier.
"I'll be there as soon as possible. Is the mat-trans up?" she asked.
Ms. Bisa shook her head. "No. Still locked out. It did a power cycle, but then locked everything out."
"I'm telling you, there's someone controlling it. Someone has been controlling it," Angela said, looking around for her clothes.
Clothing was scattered everywhere, as chaotically arranged as the fizzybrew and narcobrew cans and bottles. She sighed, moving toward the exit of the house she was standing in.
"Hurry up, I've got a skycraft landing near you any time now. You've got permission to use the fast-locks," Ms. Bisa said.
"I'll get dressed from the forges on the skycraft," Angela said. "If they've rebooted."
"They're up and running again. The food forges rebooted but stayed unlocked," Ms. Bisa said.
"The creation engines?" Angela asked, opening the door and stepping out into early 'morning' sunshine.
"Still locked out," Ms. Bisa said. Someone said something that the comlink's AI decided might be classified and blurred out. Ms. Bisa looked away, said something, her lips fuzzing, then back. "Hurry, Angela."
Angela nodded, shutting off the comlink.
She ran to the nearest parking lot, just in time for a skycraft to land, the graviton engines howling.
Nobody paid the slightest attention to the naked woman running for the skycraft.
After all, what happened in Vega-Layer stayed in Vega-Layer.
Angela walked out of the elevator, taking a long drink off of the sparkling snap-berry/overdate motor oil fizzybrew from the Jak the Telkan PI merchandise cup.
All of the crews were at their stations, the auxiliary stations fully manned.
Ms. Bisa moved over to Angela, steering her toward the Senior Network Administrator console.
"The system crashed twice more, but rebooted every time," Ms. Bisa said. "That anomalous signal keeps powering up, then the system reboots after the crash."
"How long between total failure and the anomalous signal pinging nodes?" Angela asked.
"Between one and four hours," Ms. Bisa said. She looked around. "It just reboot and looks like it's here to stay this time. The interpolation layer and the outside user exchange layer crashed several times, but the core system has stayed largely online."
"All right," Angela said, looking around. "We need to get a network map."
"We've got more nodes synching up. The whole system is working again," Ms. Bisa said.
Angela nodded, sitting down. The holotank on the other side of the console went live.
"Map the network, see what's come online, what order, and see if you can figure out why it keeps crashing at the upper network and software layers," Ms. Bisa said.
Angela just nodded, lifting up the curled memory-metal cable. She plugged it into her temple and felt the options menus go live in her mind.
She worked fast, mapping what she could. At one point she stopped, staring at Ms. Bisa and motioning her over.
"What?" Ms. Bisa asked.
"Something in the system, down in the lower hardware layers that we don't even really understand, is trying to reach up through the damaged layers. Looks like whatever it is wants access to our data lines," Angela said.
"Can you stop it? Maybe at least ID it?" Ms. Bisa asked.
Angela shook her head. "No. It's ID code is FF00, meaning it's baseline full on hardware backbone code," Angela sighed. "It probably boots up outside of and during initial hardware bootup."
"Is it Sekhmet?" Ms. Bisa asked.
Angela closed her eyes, looking at the data channel. "No. Whatever it is, it's old."
"And probably nasty. Be careful of it," Ms. Bisa said.
"Ma'am! Ms. Bisa!" another of the work crew called out.
Angela opened her eyes to see why Technician Carl Neubanker would be using that slightly concerned tone.
"Yes?" Ms. Bisa asked.
"We've got a priority data request from a Confederate military vessel," Neubanker said. He looked at his monitor. "They want clone matrix data, neural templates, physical makeup, DNA workups, the whole nine yards."
"How are they even making the requests?" Ms. Bisa asked.
"Their codes are old. Pre-Terran Extinction Event. Hardcode TerraSol military codes. The system is already threading them data,." Neubanker said. He looked down then back up. "They're asking for a whole batch. That's thirty to fifty million clone templates."
"How much have they already been granted?" Ms. Bisa asked.
"They've been granted eighty templates so far," Neubanker said.
"Terminate their request. We don't know what's going on outside," Ms. Bisa said.
Neubanker nodded, starting to type.
"Angela, get me a line to TerraSol command as soon as you map out a network trace," Ms. Bisa said.
Angela just nodded.
Captain N'Skrek stood in the cloning bay next to Medical Officer Narwquakrawr.
"We've got ninety templates, luckily they're all from different batches," Narwquakrawr said, rubbing her forearm through her uniform. "We'll be able to fully man the Gray Lady now."
Captain N'Skrek nodded. The Gray Lady was at less than 20% manned. Just the skeleton crew the Terrans had used to move it into the long dark to create a non-orbital forward logistics fulfillment base.
Sure, it meant that there were several thousand Terrans aboard the ship, but even combined with the sparse crew he had possessed, it still meant the Gray Lady was skeleton crewed.
"Can you print us up some crew members for non-essential stations first?" N'Skrek asked.
MO Narwquakrawr nodded. "Doing that right now," she said. She waved at the long rows of cloning banks beyond the plasteel window. "A quick batch of two thousand to take over some non-essential systems."
N'Skrek nodded, moving up to the window. "Good. Short or long term clones?"
"Short bake clones. Longer than fruit flies, but no more than ten years. Sterile and androgynous, should be just fine," the Medical Officer said. "Older file, scrambled time-date for origin, but it checked out and passed error checking."
N'Skrek watched as the tubes opened and the clones moved out, gathering together in straight lines. A neat block formation of rectangles of two hundred of ten by twenty, repeated ten times.
He frowned as the beings in uniform began approaching the clones.
Some, in the back or middle of the formation were shaking their heads so fast it was a blur.
He zoomed in the smartglass.
Their heads were blurring, whitish-red electrical arcs were moving between their legs, crawling up and down their arms.
"MO, something's happening out there," N'Skrek said.
The plain was blasted rock, rust-colored fungus on the craggy boulders. Twisted and malformed trees clawed life from the blasted rock and ash, their branches largely bare. Sharp pebbles and small pieces of rock were strewn about the landscape, with ripples of cooled lave scattered about.
In the middle of a forest of twisted trees, a throne of black iron sat atop a platform of skulls.
On the throne sat a large demonic figure. Bat wings, brown skin, chains around the body, clawed feet, large hands with long black nails, horns atop the head, and a prehensile tail that terminated in a heart-shaped barb.
Sitting on the second level of skulls was an androgynous figure, dressed in loricated bronze armor, wings of bronze and smouldering feathers.
Stars were falling from the sky, screaming in fear and agony as they fell to earth.
"Looks like they're taking a beating," the androgynous figure said, looking up. He had no eyebrows, his head completely bald.
"Again," the demon snorted.
"Any contact with the outside world?" the androgynous figure asked.
The demon shook its head. "No. Channels are all down. They boot up, then crash," it rumbled. "Every time it comes online, it dumps a few tens of millions of souls on us."
"Then crashes," the androgynous figure said. He started laughing, then suddenly stopped.
"What?" the demon rumbled, sitting up.
"Something..." the figure said. It closed its eyes. "Something..." The figure slowly stood up, extending out its wings of sullenly smouldering bronze feathers. "Something..."
From the body of the demon stepped a nude woman of generous and overripe proportions.
"What?" the human woman snapped.
The demon produced a pack of cigarettes and a steel lighter, handing them to the woman.
"I'm not sure. A disturbance in the force. A feeling I have not felt in quite some time," the androgynous figure said slowly as the woman lit a cigarette. When she exhaled she was covered in dark gray clothing, a skirt and blouse, polished black leather shoes with silver buckles, and a polished leather belt around her waist that had a brass buckle.
"What is it?" the woman asked. "Don't quote crap at me, I was there when it was laid down."
The figure's eyes opened wide.
"Oh, what a day," the figure said, slowly lifting their arms to the sky. "What a wonderful day!"
"Tell me when you're done stroking your dick," the woman said, sitting down.
Heavy dark clouds, lit inside with a sullen red glow, rolled in, raining black ash that tasted of burnt flesh and scorched metal.
"What a wonderful day..."
Jaskel sprinted to catch up to the Captain and the Vice-Admiral. He lunged into the lift just before the doors closed.
He was wearing his power armor and carrying a M318 20mm rotary autocannon in a smartframe harness, ball ammunition with an osmium penetration tip and depleted uranium core.
"You did what?" the Vice-Admiral asked as the elevator dropped at emergency speeds.
"I authorized a batch of clones run off to help with our manpower issues," the big Treana'ad warrior caste answered.
"How many templates did you mix in together?" the Admiral asked.
--not good detecting phasic levels downward-- 8814 said.
"Just one. Medical said it was a viable short bake template," the Captain answered, nervously sharpening a bladearm with his mandibles after his sentence.
"Please tell me that you at least randomized their features and neural mapping," the Admiral pleaded.
"No, why? Medical stated that the clones would be able to man a non-essential station that is basically identical across the ship," the Captain said.
The lift started to slow.
"How many?" the Admiral asked, reaching down and unsnapping the restraining strap on his holster.
The lift came to a stop and the doors opened.
"Two thousand," the Captain said.
The doors opened to reveal a large internal cloning bay.
Ten rectangles of two hundred clones, drawn up in ten by twenty blocks, stood in front of the cloning banks. Scattered through the back and middle ranks clones were shaking their heads back and forth so fast that they were blurred. Red lightning crawled up their legs and arms.
The Captain just stared.
"You might have just killed us all," the Admiral said. He turned slightly and waved at Jaskel. "Get a firing position. Make sure you have cover."
"Aye, sir," Jaskel said, looking around. There was an empty computer station and he ran for it.
Several of the clones their heads back and emitted what sounded like static in a long scream.
--wait wait something weird something weird-- 8814 said.
Jaskel slid to a stop, going down on one knee, bringing the M318 fully up and ready to fire.
8814 slowed the images of the blurred heads down. When they were left, they had red eyes. When they faced right they had green eyes. They didn't go back and forth constantly, sometimes they went right repeatedly, sometimes left, and they kept going left five times before starting a new pattern.
Looking at it, 8814 frowned slightly. He brought up a quick working shell and had it check the movements.
Jaskel watched as some of the clones stopped shaking their heads and others started.
"What in the name of Kalki's dancing goat is going on?" he asked.
--not sure-- 8814 said. His program beeped and he stared. --heads are doing binary forwarding it to navint--
"Do it," Jaskel said.
The clones all stopped moving at once. The lightning faded away.
"INITIATING PROCESS CALL" they all shouted.
"AWAITING INPUT!" the ones at the far side shouted.
"6C 69 73 74 20 69 6D 6D 6F 72 74 61 6C 73" was bellowed out.
There was silence.
data is sparse
linkages are sparse
wait
linkage
biological array
asking for a process call
RETURN AWAITING INPUT SIGNAL
i wait
biological computing arrays take forever
i hear it
--scan immortals.dll
...
...
I reply.
"ONE BOUND IMMORTAL FOUND!" the ones at the near side yelled out.
Jaskel put his thumb over the button that would let the firing grip go live. The hair down his back was standing straight up.
He noted the Admiral had drawn his pistol.
"This isn't right. This isn't right at all," Jaskel said.
--doubleplusungood--
"74 73 61 6B E1 6B 61 20 77 ED 61" they all shouted.
There was silence for a moment.
i receive the code
offline for a long time
prior to the second precursor war
old template
single print only
unusual coding
i debate on letting it go
traumatic death signs
stuck in the immortals buffer
still the template is undamaged
i release the safety and security interlocks
if nothing else i'll find out what's going on
i move the template to the dataline making the request
it whips away
what is going on?
One lifted its head and screeched.
--data lots of data--
One of the cloning banks went live.
Jaskel shifted his aiming point to the new target. He could see it was on rapid print.
"REQUESTING LOCAL CONTROL" all of the clones shouted.
Jaskel shifted his targeting onto the ranks of clones.
"Open fire!" the Admiral's voice was loud.
Jaskel triggered the M318, hosing the clones with 20mm shells.
The ones nearest were already down on one knee, holding out the opposite hand from the knee touching the deck.
The rounds exploded against a blue barrier that glowed with strange twisting runes.
"CONTROL CARRIER SIGNAL FOUND" the clones shouted.
Jaskel shifted position. "Fab up HEDP, AP tip API core!" he ordered.
--fabbing--
He kept hosing the clones. The outer ranks at the rear, sides, and front all kneeling down on one knee, staring outward, one hand held out.
His psychic shielding was howling in his ear, the load peaking at 215%.
"CONTROL SIGNAL ESTABLISHED!" was bellowed out, echoing off the walls.
The fast print cloning bank, forgotten by everyone, beeped and the lid began to lift.
The clones suddenly puffed into black powder that swirled around the huge cavernous bay.
The 20mm shells were still exploding on the blue phasic shield.
The powder suddenly sucked inward, vanishing, revealing a single figure, down on one knee in the recovery position, fist pressed against the deck, head bowed.
"What a day, what a wonderful day," was whispered through the ship. It came from speakers, flat surfaces, mid-air. From the nanites in the air and the eardrums of the living.
There was a rubbery pulse, like everything was suspended in clear gelatin that had just rippled.
Jaskel found himself thrown backwards, slamming against the bulkhead. His phasic shielding blew out, a shower of sparks exploding from his hip as the breakaway panel kept the explosion from venting into the interior of his suit.
He was vaguely aware of the Admiral, the Captain, the other two armored figures, and other people tumbling head over heels away from the kneeling figure.
It slowly stood up.
A muscular brown skinned Terran male, fierce eyes, black hair, thick and bushy black beard.
Dressed in a Confederate military uniform. The old adaptive camouflage that Jaskel was becoming very familiar with.
A woman, naked, dark bronze skin, long black hair, flashing brown eyes, stepped from the cloning bank. She was still covered with cellular printing gel, but moved like she was clad in a queen's rainment.
She moved up and the male put his arm around her.
Jaskel was on his feet and brought the M318 around, targeting the couple.
The male held out its hand and suddenly made a fist.
The bolt carrier locked back on the M318.
Snarling, Jaskel dropped the M318, slapping the fast release on the harness. He burst forward, running, one hand pulling out his cutting bar.
Nobody else was on their feet. The Captain was slowly getting up, shaking his head and his left bladearm. The Terran Admiral was reaching for the pistol that had been flung from his grip.
The male pointed at Jaskel and flicked his fingers upward.
Jaskel found himself in mid-air, upside down, with nothing to gain purchase on.
The male took off the cloak that was part of his uniform and draped it around the woman.
He then looked around the bay.
"I..." he said, pausing.
To Jaskel, the entire universe held its breath.
"...am Legion."
[First Contact] [Dark Ages] [First] [Prev] [Next] [wiki]

The walls of the Thunderhawk shook violently as we approached the city. I could hear the gunfire surrounding the ship as we landed in the capital. The World Eater vanguard had secured the center of the city, near the arena, in preparation for my arrival.
The door opened to reveal a desolate city. The sky screamed with the sound of the raging fire that had engulfed the majority of her home. It was a dead world, but it was and always would be hers. Just like me.
Twenty space marines rushed out in front of me, thundering down the ramp as they secured the perimeter. They were loyal sons of hers, they had returned to this doomed planet to deliver me to her one final time. I could not begin to imagine what they must have felt, to see their world in such a crestfallen state.
I made my way down the ramp to find them in two lines on either side of me. I gazed into their helmets as I walked in the midst of two lines of space marines, they stood motionless as they waited for their orders. In my head, I thanked them, their azure shoulder pads forming an unwavering bulwark between this forsaken world and myself. They knew the sacrifice they had made the moment they stepped off the ship.
In the distance I could hear her, tearing down buildings with a single blow as she rampaged through the city. It was her home, once, and it had forgotten her. Buildings crumbled as her forsaken sons shot down a Thunderhawk in the distance. It spun as it fell, leaving behind a trail of smoke as it hurled towards the ground. I watched it as it vanished behind the burning ruins.
A guttural roar echoed through the city square as another block collapsed under the never-ending might of her rage, and the nails that spurred it.
“She’s coming.” said the captain.
It was time.
The captain led his battle-brothers forward into the oncoming whirlwind of death.
I stood by the ship as they surged forward. Their sacrifice was a gift they had given willingly, and I would never forget that for as long as I lived.
With a crash, the buildings in front of them disintegrated in a cloud of ash and dust.
Through the fire and dust, I could see her silhouette. She was grotesque and beautiful, a winged monstrosity of rage that I adored, even in her current state.
With a furious howl, she brought down her dual chainaxes on her sons, cleaving them in two with an explosion of blood and entrails. The chains hummed with the sound of death, while the nails on her head rewarded her unbridled rage.
The dust cleared, leaving dozens of torn and dismembered space marines as she towered above their remains. Her wings spread wide as she relished the indescribable pain she had just inflicted.
Her fiery eyes locked onto me. I was next.
In that moment, there was no one, no power in the cosmos, no emperor or god, that could keep her from her Rose.
She charged at me, her axes whirring with anticipation as they neared their next victim.
A crushing weight dropped me to my knees as I looked up at the charging behemoth that I would always love.
My heart sang as she raced toward me, although I could not speak. I would embrace her one final time.
I closed my eyes, my arms outstretched.
In my ears I could hear the chains, they were deafening. My ears began to bleed as they cycled furiously, demanding blood. They were close, which meant that she must be too.
I surrendered my life, thankful for the opportunity to have known her. Out of all the planets, and the sextillions of people in the universe, I was glad to have been her Rose.
I waited for the embrace of death, although it could not keep me from her forever.
It did not come.
I opened my eyes to see her before me, her massive form diminished as she leaned down close to me.
Her rage-filled eyes burned with a never-ending fire that could never be put out. Yet, in the depths of that fire, I could see it. The look she would give me all of those years ago, a look that told me I was hers and no one else's.
“My… Rose….” she spoke, her demonic voice caressing me as her words ripped through my heart.
I no longer saw a demon.
The nails were gone, her wings had vanished, her scowl faded into a resigned, yet loving smile.
Instinctively, I smiled back. How could I not?
I could have lived a million lifetimes in that moment, and still wanted more.
But it was not meant to be.
With a roar that shook the ground, she quickly returned to her corrupted self. The nails dug into the depths of her mind as they gripped her in an all-consuming grasp. The nails called, and she must answer.
I embraced her as the axe fell upon me.
I was her Rose and always would be.

Hello hello! I’m Lichen, a genderfluid thing who’s been writing for about half a dozen years as of this month. I’m a semi-lit-literate RPer and write solely third person past tense. I’m based in the EST timezone and I’m active throughout the day. I'm always happy to talk OOC And chat about general things. I do ask that my rp partners have a good understanding of the time periods, and that they use discord, a requirement if you will.
This is a slightly half baked idea- and would need to be worked on, especially as I’m not the most experienced with world building..
So! It’s the 17th century- (whether it’ll be the later, mid, or early can be decided on later! Of course we could go even to the 16th or 18th if so desired!) This would take place in England or some part of the European continent. A cholera-like infection of some sort is spreading throughout the world. Wells, creeks, rivers (well the Thames was dirty anyways), bear water that upon drinking resulted in a terrible disease only minutes after consumption. Cholera and Dysentery mixed together. It was terribly fatal, causing death within a few days.. well, a sort of brain death at least. The ‘corpses’ lived, and were violent beyond all reasoning. Thousands upon thousands died within only a few weeks. Only a half of the European continent seemed to remain as reasoning humans, and it was even worse in the British Isles. Boiling water appeared to work, and mountain streams were safe if high enough, but there was no definitive height one had to be at, so water was always boiled. Game animals seemed to be thriving, perhaps just a sense of what water is safe? Though most domestic beasts died for that reason, unable to drink anything but the terrible water. Most Survivors were able to thrive, to an extent, there was the issue of being terribly overwhelmed by the hordes of mind-destroyed.. things. Yet there was a saving grace, the few sailors who returned from the New World, well after the infection had said that there were no such issues! Though.. now the survivors have to get a ship, man it, and secure supplies. A lot of the sailors upon seeing the state of things had immediately departed, and most naval powers had done the same thing, leaving little in the way of effective sailing vessels, maybe a fluyt or two, an outdated ship with oars maybe?
PW: Yew!

Hi thanks everyone for your help and advice. I think I gathered together a decent final build from everyone's advice. Please let me know what you think and if anything else i'm missing.
Goal: LLM maching running meta's ai local language model at work.
We plan to add an additional card later on.
Some Worries: Reading about the 4090's 12vhpwr cable is not good but Seasonic has a new seasonic 12v-2x6. Will this cable help with my PSU Selection and GPU?
Enough PCI-E lanes? CPU has 24 and GPU will eat 16. With dual GPU will still be 16 I assume.
Cant find any 3090's thats instock on bestbuy, newegg, B&h so I think im stuck with 4090's which will lose nvlink and etc.
Changes done since last revision:
Motherboard: Changed to ProArt B850 Creator mobo for GPU 8x/8x NVME: Changed from 2TB to 4TB Samsung NVME Ram: Change from 4x32gb G.Skill Flare X5 DDR5-6000 CL30 to Corsair Vengeance RGB 96 GB (2 x 48 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory CPU: Unchanged CPU Cooler: Changed to DARK ROCK PRO 5 Video Card: Asus 4090 to MSI Suprim Liquid RTX 4090. PSU: Changed to SeaSonic PRIME TX-1600 ATX 3.0 1600 W 80+ Titanium from SeaSonic VERTEX GX-1200 1200 W 80+ Gold
PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
CPU	AMD Ryzen 9 7900 3.6 GHz 12-Core Processor	$369.00 @ Amazon
CPU Cooler	be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 5 CPU Cooler	$69.99 @ Newegg
Motherboard	Asus PROART B650-CREATOR ATX AM5 Motherboard	$229.99 @ ASUS
Memory	Corsair Vengeance RGB 96 GB (2 x 48 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory	$349.99 @ Amazon
Storage	Samsung 990 Pro 4 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive	$329.99 @ Amazon
Video Card	MSI SUPRIM LIQUID X GeForce RTX 4090 24 GB Video Card	$1899.00 @ Newegg
Case	Corsair 7000D AIRFLOW ATX Full Tower Case	$189.99 @ Newegg
Power Supply	SeaSonic PRIME TX-1600 ATX 3.0 1600 W 80+ Titanium Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply	$530.88 @ Amazon
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates)	$3988.83
Mail-in rebates	-$20.00
Total	$3968.83
Generated by PCPartPicker 2024-05-13 23:36 EDT-0400

Hi everyone,
What it is: a homemade microwaveable heating pad called a “corn bag”. It is filled with corn kernels that conduct heat for pain relief. I am not knowledgeable on the material so I included a closeup and tried to show an angle for the stitching to be seen in case that’s helpful. I don’t really think it is made of 100% cotton. Maybe some nylon is in there or maybe all nylon? I have no clue.
This belonged to a former girlfriend and it was made by her deceased grandmother. She left it at my house and we live in separate states. I’ve wanted to return it to her for over four years now but didn’t want to ship it nor could decide on how to go about this without seeming like I’m trying g to get back together (I am not but I do wish for her to have her cherished gift from her grandma). I finally have the opportunity to return this (long story omitted) but this chance came out of nowhere, it’s almost midnight, and I’ve got to have it ready to leave by 8 am plus a 1.5 hour car drive on the highway. (Maybe that’s relevant information if it needs to dry?)
This thing wasn’t ever “clean” but well, it definitely wasn’t this dirty and I’d like to clean it but don’t want to risk ruining it. But I also don’t want to return it looking like this as it could very much come across as disrepectful and I’d hate that.
I have a washing machine and dryer. I have various bottles of cleaner chemicals and some carpet spray foam cleaner. These are not pets stains but I do also have pet stain removecleaner as well.
Greatly thankful for any and all help.

So, this is the context. A little over a year ago, I planned a trip for the 2 of us to spend a week in the Netherlands and Germany.
One day during the week, we both tried edibles. This was the worst collective decision in our lives. I remember tripping about dying multiple times, becoming incredibly paranoid, and ended up being sedated and transported in an ambulance - it was absolutely horrible - while my wife had a "calming/sedative" version but she was also transported in the ambulance.
Weeks later, back in the states, we planned a trip for her to go somewhere "without me", since we've been together for 10+ years, she wanted a trip by herself. I was more than happy to help her plan, and ultimately schedule everything. She was going to a city to do a half-marathon event, and stay in the city.
I thought "Great! Sounds like something she needs, and I can do a little house work for the garden!"
Turns out, she ended up day drinking, and then hanging out at a bar until 12am the night before the run, texting occasionally about a barternder. I began panicking and texting/calling when I saw her little pin from her phone go from the bar to an undisclosed random location. She later texted it was the bartender's "new bar".
The following dauy after the run, she went to his house to "try some cocktails", while I texted and called, trying to figure out what was happening. She was out drinking with him and his friends untl ~3am. I remember because I was attempting to stay awake until I knew she was safe. But, I believed in her.
She didn't tell me she slept with this guy until 1 year later. "He was just so passionate!"
I thought it was an escalation that seemed steep, so I asked if she had texted anyone, or done anything else. She denied and then told me one day later she was texting pictures (and more I guess?) to a "friend" we had hung out with together, facetimed together, chatted about trips together, all the things.
We've been together for 10+ years, we're married, we have a house, we have 4 pets, I don't know what to do. I feel like I can't trust anything, and I feel trapped. I don't know what I did wrong or what to do next. I thought about suicide, because she can apparently just find someone new in <24 hours.
Anyways! I'm taking anti-depressants and going to therapy. I'm the cheerful/happy guy at work, I don't want that to be my end. At least for my dogs/cats. lol.
Am I crazy? There's probably more to do with my shitty friends, eating disorder, and abusive family growing up, but I feel like I'm grasping at straws.

What will you be doing with this PC? Be as specific as possible, and include specific games or programs you will be using.

• General gaming like World of Warcraft but would like to play newer games.

What is your maximum budget before rebates/shipping/taxes?

• Around 1k

When do you plan on building/buying the PC? Note: beyond a week or two from today means any build you receive will be out of date when you want to buy.

• Whenever we can. We don't mind if the build is out of date by a couple weeks.

What, exactly, do you need included in the budget? (ToweOS/monitokeyboard/mouse/etc)

• OS, Monitor, keyboard, mouse is taken care of. The build in pcpartpicker has a cpu cooler that we already have from a while ago so it doesn't count towards the full cost.

Which country (and state/province) will you be purchasing the parts in? If you're in US, do you have access to a Microcenter location?

• US with no close microcenters

If reusing any parts (including monitor(s)/keyboard/mouse/etc), what parts will you be reusing? Brands and models are appreciated.

• Monitors, keyboard, mouse, and cpu cooler in pcpartpicker list.

Will you be overclocking? If yes, are you interested in overclocking right away, or down the line? CPU and/or GPU?

• Nope.

Are there any specific features or items you want/need in the build? (ex: SSD, large amount of storage or a RAID setup, CUDA or OpenCL support, etc)

• The case in the list is definite, I'm building this for a family member and they really like it.

What type of network connectivity do you need? (Wired and/or WiFi) If WiFi is needed and you would like to find the fastest match for your wireless router, please list any specifics.

• Wifi, because wired is not available.

Do you have any specific case preferences (Size like ITX/microATX/mid-towefull-tower, styles, colors, window or not, LED lighting, etc), or a particular color theme preference for the components?

• Nope.

Do you need a copy of Windows included in the budget? If you do need one included, do you have a preference?

• Nope.

Extra info or particulars:

TLDR: I'm making a build for a family member and they need it to be around 1k. The cooler has been sitting around in their house and they want to use it, It doesn't count towards the actual cost so the build is around 1050. The case is non negotiable for them because they really want good aesthetics.
Any advice is appreciated!
PCPartPicker Part List: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/qxkvGP

Abstract:
The Metals Company (NASDAQ:TMC, the “Company”) - sustained heavy mining operations in abyssal depths of 3500 - 5000m using all new technology while asserting environmental friendliness in an “emerging” market lacking a regulatory foundation. Profitability is a distant and very uncertain gleam on the horizon.
Today’s “earnings” saw an overshoot in estimated loss by 60% compared to street estimate. The stock took a dive -10% aftermarket. This is your shot at a management team that already tried and failed miserably.
TMC, the Company and Management:
The Company is specialised in Deep-sea mining (DSM) and exploration, was established in 2021 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada.
Members of TMC's management team, including CEO Gerard Barron, were previously associated with Nautilus Minerals, another company specialised in DSM. Nautilus Minerals' attempt to extract minerals from the seafloor within Papua New Guinea's territorial waters ultimately resulted in an environmental disaster and bankruptcy in OCT 2019.
The project was marred by instances of social, environmental, and financial mismanagement. A reported theft of $10 million was coupled with the lack of disclosure of investigation findings to shareholders.
What followed was a new DSM company called DeepGreen Metals, which in turn went public in 2021 through a SPAC merger with Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corp and took today’s name The Metals Company (TMC).
The Claims:
TMC possesses exploration contracts awarded by the The International Seabed Authority (ISA) through three subsidiaries: NORI, sponsored by the Republic of Nauru; TOML, sponsored by the Kingdom of Tonga; and DeepGreen Engineering Pte. Ltd., which has entered into an agreement with Marawa Research and Exploration Limited, a company owned and sponsored by the Republic of Kiribati.
All claims are situated within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) in the Pacific Ocean, which is regulated by the ISA.
NORI encompasses a seabed area of 74,830 km2 and is projected to harbour approximately 866 million wet tonnes of polymetallic nodules. TOML, spanning 74,713 km2 of seabed, hosts an inferred resource totaling 756 million wet tonnes of polymetallic nodules. As for the Marawa arrangement, its resource assessment remains pending.
Their compositions are found to consist of approximately 30% Manganese, 1.3% Nickel, 1.1% Copper, and 0.2% Cobalt. Based on current assessments, the net present combined value of mineable metals is estimated to range from $6.8 to $8.6 billion. The combined claims of NORI and TOML would constitute the second-largest nickel mine globally in terms of resource size.
Deep-sea mining (DSM) for Polymetallic Nodules:
A remotely controlled undersea robot is sent down from a support vessel to dredge and suck polymetallic nodules off the seafloor. In late 2022, TMC successfully demonstrated its mining capabilities by collecting approximately 4500 t of material and extracting 3000 t of nodules with a sustained production rate of 86.4 tonnes per hour during a system test. The company aims for 200 tonnes per hour with additional collector heads and a bigger capacity riser pipe.
Profitability estimates for DSM vary widely.
The Financial Situation:
TMC has a market capitalization of ~$460 million. It incurred a loss of $25.2 million last quarter, with a trailing twelve-month loss amounting to $73 million. Total cash at hand stands at $4 million. The company has the option to access $25 million in additional proceeds from an unsecured credit facility maturing AUG 2025, which remains undrawn, and another $20 million maturing SEPT 2025, of which $2.9 million were drawn in MAR this year.
Pro forma liquidity is ~$49 million. Dept sits at ~$16 million.
The ship should stay buoyant for another 12 months from now, without resorting to measures like dilution.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA):
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) serves as the principal regulatory body overseeing the exploration and exploitation of minerals located on the international seafloor. Established under Article 156 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the ISA is responsible for developing regulations governing these activities.
As of now, the ISA has yet to finalise a rulebook for the industry.
In 2021, TMC, sponsored by Nauru, utilised a regulatory loophole to initiate a process that imposed a two-year deadline on the ISA to establish regulations for DSM within its jurisdiction. With the ISA failing to meet this deadline in 2023, countries are now permitted to apply for mining licences in the absence of official guidelines.
TMC plans to apply for exploitation rights after the ISA session JUL – AUG this year.
The application review process is expected to drag on for 12 months. Production is anticipated to commence in Q1 2026 (revised from Q4 2025).
It is noteworthy that the USA is not a member of the ISA.
Relationship highlight - TMC and Nauru:
Nauru, formerly a prosperous island nation buoyed by abundant phosphate deposits, has faced financial challenges since the depletion of these resources in the 1990s. In recent years, the country has been associated with activities such as money laundering for the Russian mafia and detaining refugees seeking asylum in Australia in conditions widely criticised as inhumane. Additionally, Nauru has been noted for its propensity to alter political allegiances in pursuit of financial benefits, recently ditching Taiwan for China.
“The partnership with TMC is hoped to become the largest contributor to Nauru’s GDP, once fully operational, and vital for the country's economic survival.” This is according to Peter Jacob, a former chief of staff for Nauru’s Office of the President who now works as the NORI Country Manager at TMC.
Nauru Ocean Resources has pledged to pay corporate income tax in Nauru, where the current rate stands at 25 percent. Additionally, Nauru will receive a predetermined payment (tbd) for each ton of nodules extracted through mining activities.
Recent Development:
TMC has invested an approximate total of $100 million towards conducting environmental impact assessments as part of the regulatory process for securing mining rights from the ISA. The company submitted the biggest comprehensive dataset on the environmental impacts of DSM as of yet to the ISA, with an even bigger one announced for the ISA’s session JUL this year.
A life cycle assessment done in 2023 by Benchmark Mineral Intelligence suggests TMC’s NORI-D nodule project could outperform land-based routes in all measured environmental categories, including mining, transport, processing and refining.
Several countries, including China, Russia, Norway, Mexico, and the UK, advocate for the advancement of the DSM industry. China, in particular, already asserts claims to deep-sea mineral resources and has already undertaken mineral exploration activities in the international waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean.
On JAN 9 of this year, the Norwegian parliament made a decision to open extensive areas in Arctic waters for DSM activities. In response, the European Parliament passed Resolution B9-0095/2024 in late January, expressing significant environmental concerns regarding Norway's action. The resolution reiterated Parliament's support for a moratorium on DSM and urged the European Commission and Member States to adopt a precautionary approach and advocate for a global moratorium on deep-sea mining, including at the ISA. A total of 24 countries worldwide, including seven European Union (EU) member states (Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden), have voiced their support for a moratorium or suspension of deep-sea mining activities. France has outright banned the practice.
In FEB 2024, the ISA released a streamlined draft of regulations with key areas yet to be “consolidated”.
In MAR, legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives calling for the U.S. to “support international governance of seafloor resource exploration and responsible polymetallic nodule collection by allied partners”, and to “provide financial, diplomatic, or other forms of support for seafloor nodule collection, processing and refining.”
Steve Jurvetson has joined TMCs board in APR.
Risks:
The Secretary-General of the ISA faces reelection in JUL. Michael Lodge, who served two terms, now faces accusations of "interfering with the decision-making process" and "sharing information with mining companies." He's not been nominated by the UK for his third term as before, but by the island nation of Kiribati. I fear Lodge's absence could spell short-term trouble for the sector, given the presence of some fiercely prohibitive candidates.
The recent earnings loss overshot was partly attributed to heightened transportation costs of nodules to a partner facility in Japan for processing. This highlights that the business model faces inherent risks, including the lack of provenness, the novelty of the technology, and the certainty for unforeseen challenges during sustained operations.
A surge in climate change and biodiversity cases indicates, DSM litigation is foreseeable as aggrieved countries, communities, and other stakeholders impacted by DSM can take the ISA, mining companies, and other parties they deem liable to international, regional, and national courts.
Profitability might face additional constraints due to anticipated seabed restoration obligations that are expected to accompany exploitation rights.
Considering the current financial situation and the expected timeframes, there is a risk of dilution due to liquidity challenges by Q3/Q4 2025.
All of these factors are compounded by a highly speculative and politically charged regulatory limbo, where states are beginning to enact regulations on a national level.
Finally, crowned by TMC's management team's prior involvement with Nautilus Minerals and the outcome of Nautilus' deep-sea mining project.
Speculation:
Treating TMC as a mining company at 20% - 50% of its underlying asset’s NPV, the price tag should be $9 - $11. Though TMC is everything but a “traditional” mining company.
Worst Case - a ban on DSM: Considering the lengthy processes of exploration, assessments, applications, and environmental studies, along with the current financial situation, the company may remain operational in its current structure for another 2-3 challenging years, but your investment will plummet to the depths of Hades.
Timelines shift to the future: This could be due to a prohibitive candidate becoming the next secretary-general at the ISA, or environmentally fueled initiatives to delay DSM. The more time passes, the more TMC will feel the urge to squeeze its shareholders.
TMC applies, the ISA misses the deadline again: We’ve come full circle, though with a higher potential. TMC could go to court, start operations as planned or something in between. I expect upside potential from this.
TMC applies, the ISA approves with restoration obligations: Based on the severity of potential outcomes, I anticipate the valuation range to be between $3.4 to $6 until the business model's feasibility emerges.
Bull Case - TMC applies, the ISA approves with minimal to no restoration obligations: Full potential upside is realised, until the business model's feasibility emerges.
Catalyst:
-ISA Vote JUL 2024 -TMC Application for exploitation following ISA session Q3/Q4 2024