So by paying for university he is funding any protests done by students? A bit of a stretch, no?
I used ublock to block the popup by using the pick function, but I have not run into this 3 flags your out popup yet, so depends on how they disable the video I guess. I'll try to report back.
What do you mean by direct-to-content-producer? I can't find it on Google. Are you suggesting the viewers pay the content creator and the content creator pays YouTube for hosting?
Subscription is a reasonable funding method. It's also reasonably priced. I think the bigger problem is companies that refuse to offer subscriptions, because Facebook knows no one is dumb enough to pay $15-20 a month, but that is what they make off the ads so offering the service for anything less would cause them to lose money. Merely offering the subscription shows users how much Facebook really makes off of them.
YouTube is also very generous with how much they spit revenue with creators. I don't like that they exist as a monopoly, but at least they aren't parasites like the other half of the web.
I'm more curious as to what bologna you eat that doesn't taste like hotdog.
Yeah I was tempted to add a caveat, it does technically auto executive, but because it needs to interact with the real world it will always run into the oracle problem. The only solution to the oracle problem is courts and tort law, which makes the blockchain contract redundant and unnecessarily expensive.
VC investing is effectively predatory pricing, squeezing out original non-tech service providers by providing services below cost, then replacing them with monopoly tech versions. The funding is intimately tied to the industry and they all use the same strategy.
This was actually the original idea of non-fungible tokens, but because you need special legislation to tie an object to this digital receipt (there is nothing legally tying one thing to the other), they just skipped over it completely and said the NFT itself was the commodity, which is why they could only do it for digital art with the a web link. (we could, for example, see this more useful for a title to a car or house)
In fact, many NFTs don't even contain any language about copyright or licensing, they don't even attempt to pretend that the NFT holder owns the copyright. The owner of the NFT in these cases only owns the NFT, and not the copyright. Of course, you have to transfer the copyright separately from transferring the NFT, which makes this whole thing redundant for buying/selling on secondary markets, but they could have at least tried to pretend they could.
Apparently, smart contracts are not contracts at all... they are friendly suggestions. Unsurprisingly a contract needs a mechanism to enforce it, which makes decentralized contracts redundant at best (as you still need institutions outside of the blockchain to monitor and enforce the contracts), and or worse, completely useless if there is no legal way to enforce them.
The people that can actually make him look like an idiot refuse to interview or debate him (don't want to "platform" him, among other concerns), so he looks like a genius to people that don't know better.
People also seem to be concerned that he can bullshit his way through a debate by overwhelming people with fake facts. This is completely false, I've seen clips where he gets light pushback from relatively neutral speakers and he immediately folds or says something stupid.
People need to stop trying to sweep him under the rug, it only makes him look more authoritative and convincing to dumb people.
I don't like centralized religions either, and I think I agree with your points. But I'm just saying the line "The X of peace" is either so generic that it is a bland description of any ideology. All ideology hides it's violence behind self defense, and are therefore "peaceful". Or it implies that they are particularly peaceful, so it's a description of non-violent. But few ideologies would identify as non violent, and so they would not use that term to describe themselves.
I've never actually heard anyone use that line except people in alt-right circles, and I am around a lot of Muslims. It is not a term Muslims use to describe their religion, not that they would describe it differently, just that it is a strange description. It would be like calling Canada "the country of peace", which I guess is technically true because most countries want to avoid war and promote peace? But does not mean their military is non-violent.
The line is clearly used for the intent of creating a false contrast to make some made up point about hypocrisy.
Also as the other commenter pointed out, you are making a critique about the middle East, everyone agrees the middle East is dysfunctional.
Armstrong said the SEC recommendation left them no choice but to head to court.
“They came back to us, and they said . . . we believe every asset other than bitcoin is a security,” Armstrong said according to the FT. “And, we said, well how are you coming to that conclusion, because that’s not our interpretation of the law. And they said, we’re not going to explain it to you, you need to delist every asset other than bitcoin.”
The main post would be shared but then in the comment section you can swipe left or right to scroll through the different instances (comment section). Most comment sections don't have such unique requirements anyways, usually on Reddit I just assume "don't be an asshole" and on the few occasions where that is not sufficient, I get deleted and the mod notifies me of the error, then I learn. Generally people won't familiarize themselves with the community rules before posting.
It was the Bush administration that used their cultural differences as a justification for their hatred of the west. Of course, Bush could have just mentioned what Al Qaeda actually said, which was that they were a reaction to the US military, money, and support meddling in the Middle East. But then that might draw negative attention from legitimate concerns the Middle East has, which means the terrorists win according to their tortured logic, so instead "they hate us for our freedom".
I think the main thing is that you can get a more intense nicotine hit, probably because it is easier to smoke higher concentrations, so I assume it is more addictive in that regard. It's a smoother smoke and you don't get that residual nicotine in the mouth that you would at high concentrations of the freebase. You can always just try it out, most vapes are compatible with both juices, although they might be optimized for one over the other.
It's more of a cliche, I don't think anyone actually does it, but it shows up in those cropped images of tweets people post on reddit. Downvotes should show right next to the upvotes (at least, on desktop). Is a nice feature to show both, so if it's like, negative 1, you can see, Oh it's actually negative 10 and positive 9, that is like 50% dislike ratio. Feels a lot better knowing its a split crowd.
edit: A word
I just saw your response to my comment, didn't load earlier. Yes is fundamentally the same chemical reaction. Acid/base reaction that results in a salt. Makes a huge difference in the experience in my opinion, I find the salt form to be much closer to real cigs. But as you can see from the other commenter, people have different preferences.
DELETE THIS POST 😂 Hey this isn't twitter, but you can try 👏 adding 👏 claps 👏 between 👏 words 👏 if you think it will help.
Is a valid point to say they haven't done anything honorable. Maybe my post is the equivalent of saying a murderer is honorable for telling the cops where he put the bodies? I like to give credit where credit is due, but I can see your point. Anyways, I feel bad that you have been downvoted to zero, I'll give you an upvote.
Interesting point, that they are actually censoring dissent, it's just that they are focusing on what can actually harm them and they have deemed fuck spez to be a good vent. So in effect it looks like they are giving free range to words/text protests, but really that is the only they leave up.
They are just making a point. No such thing, just pointing out that criminal courts don't prove innocence.
No, ex as in former sexual partners, because you aren't doing them any more.
I'm trying to transition off of reddit completely and I dislike what they have done. But that being said, I thought it was quite honorable of them to not censor the 'fuck spez', be it comments throughout the site or on /r/Place. They even left the giant fuck spez ending in the official time lapse of /r/Place and the highest ranked post is a screen shot of the same.
They have many reasonable sounding excuses available to censor excessive use of the word 'fuck', and I don't see how they benefit by leaving it up there. It's not like censoring swear words is beyond the pale compared to other things they have done. They didn't even need to do /r/Place, they knew full well what was going to happen but they did it anyways.
I know many people think this is some 4D chess move or a fear of the Streisand effect. They are not that clever.
I just wanted to point out that it does in fact look like they have a line that they won't cross and they are holding to it.
Also, fuck spez.
This explains in laymen terms how Bitcoin wallets work. This is from the 101 Blackboard Series, is an oldy but goody.
I suspect I am probably preaching to the choir here, but I know in the Reddit Bitcoin sub there are a surprising amount of people in the community that still express concerns in the comments because Bitcoin lacks inflation. This is, of course, a feature, not a bug.
The most pernicious claim is that of the "Deflationary Spiral" which is the most cited reason however, it also makes no sense. This is the theory that as the value of money increases, it incentivizes hoarding of cash and harms the economy.
(1) The claim is that as prices decrease, demand will decrease. This is in direct contradiction to the base economic model, no one makes this claim outside of the deflationary spiral argument. They reference human psychology, not math or controlled experiments, yet they have no psychological studies to back this claim.
(2) The same claim can be made in reverse for inflation, with similarly damaging effects in the other direction. Nobody makes this claim because chronic low-level inflation does not trigger a spiral. Inflation artificially promotes spending that would not have otherwise occurred, increasing malinvestment and conspicuous consumption. The central bank actually guarantees debasement of the currency (unlike deflation, where there is no explicit guarantee) which should trigger people to try to get rid of the currency, which should trigger more inflation, which would trigger more people to dump the currency. This doesn't happen because people are not hyper-rational and it is too burdensome for the average person to try to figure out how to protect themselves against such low levels of inflation. If you think about it there are actually more factors that incentivize inflationary spirals than deflationary spirals.
(3) Well-off individuals store a majority of their wealth in appreciating assets, this has the same net effect as storing wealth in a deflationary currency but no one extends the claim to these stores of wealth.
(4) Technology is inherently deflationary, and probably the only sector that has regularly sustained predictable deflation. It is also the most productive element of the economy.
(5) The time value of money states that money with a fixed value is worth more today than it is worth in a year from now purely on the fact that you can spend or invest it now and with no delayed gratification. Compensating those that abstain from spending money is actually the more rational position. There is no natural law that says money must decay over time.
The truth is a currency that goes from stable to highly variable, inflationary or deflationary, is damaging because most economies are built on the assumption of price stability. This includes fixed wages of people, locked-in interest rates, long-term contracts, and psychological expectations, none of these things are actually fixed or mandatory in an economy. One could just as easily tie these arrangements to the value of a basket of goods rather than fiat currency. A low level of deflation, the final stage of Bitcoin, also does not challenge this paradigm.
Inflation also eats away at wages and savings and for that reason enriches the current power structure. Of course, to these people, slowly siphoning off other people's wealth is an integral part of their job and their future wealth accumulation, so anything that threatens that game "threatens the economy". Or rather, threatens "their" economy.
(Copied from the Youtube description) In this video, I discuss Nigel Farage having his bank accounts involuntarily closed down in the context of a wider global government crackdown on free speech, as well as the right for anyone to use money and the banking system, regardless of political views.
Cutting off banking access was once a punishment reserved mostly for nation-state actors (Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc). Over the past few years, we’ve seen it increasingly used, even in developed countries with rules of law, by governments to target individuals whose political opinions go against the establishment.
“Bitcoin has no use cases except for speculation and gambling” People who say things like this must be blissfully unaware that money and banks have been and will continue to be weaponized against people to stifle free speech, to control the political opposition, and ultimately to control whole populations (like the CCP does to China).
We’re collaborating with the Swift community globally to test how institutions can use their Swift connection to seamlessly interoperate with the multitude of blockchain networks emerging around the world.
This is news from earlier in June but was overshadowed by the SEC lawsuits that came out at the same time. SWIFT represents critical banking infrastructure and its openness to crypto assets signals a sea change in attitudes among banks. This article is still the lead story on their site, www.swift.com , which is also telling, despite recent regulator crackdowns on tokens.
Bloomberg: The enterprise-software maker co-founded by crypto proponent Michael Saylor acquired 12,333 Bitcoin between April 29 and June 27 at an average price of $28,136, according to a US Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Wednesday
(edit 2023-07-04: it appears I killed the original link when I added the photo, so I have now fixed it so that the original article is now linked to this post)
CBDCs—if well designed—could lower remittances’ costs and improve financial inclusion. But for crypto assets to safely remain part of the payment system, they need to be regulated.
People keep reporting on the IMF talking positively about crypto, which is funny because they could just link to the blog post and let it speak for itself. Most of the positivity in the post revolves around CBDCs. However, they were fairly neutral on the topic of Bitcoin adoption in the region, which is a clear departure from their past negative statements.
It is important to keep in mind this is just a blog post, not an official IMF statement. So, while it's a positive development, it's important to take it for what it is.
(edit: Link broke when I added the image, I have fixed the link so that it now properly goings to the original article)