I don't care. I watched an interview with him and his foreign policy takes were so horrid he would be laughed out of the room if he said something like this in my country. Guess some people in the UK don't really give a crap about Ukraine.
I'm not from the UK but when I last watched something with Corbyn he was shilling for Russia, how is that not an absolute deal-breaker?
Edit: I was completely right and got downvoted for it. He wanted to stop arms to Ukraine. He sucks and can go and die in a volcano. No left-wing politicians in Poland are like this when it comes to Russia, why are western lefties so brain-dead and conciliatory to this horrible regime? Telling Ukraine to roll over and give up its land. Fuck you tankie POS.
Well, now that I look at her pf picture that seems to be the case, although it doesn't answer any of my questions
Source? This is cropped exactly so that you don't see what the first guy/gal is responding to. Mighty sus
Who is attacking libraries and where? Did the first person just make that up? IDK
I'll just use Firefox mobile with uBlock Origin then, literally anything is better than ads
Duder here defending a literal islamofascist monarchy that kills gay people and journalists, and an authoritarian one party state that uses Han ethnonationalism to replace native populations they conquered and puts minorities into concentration camps Edit: you can't even spell echo right lol
It's a weapon like any other. Maybe you're iffy on the name, but suicide drones are just another way to attack specific targets, like missiles but far more precise. What is evil about having a remotely controlled aircraft hit an enemy position as opposed to artillery, bombs or gunfire hitting enemy position?
That's a bit different, as in magnitudes more stupid (if true)
Ideally you would want laws to reflect morality. If drugs became legal, monero would no longer be useful for buying them, if that's what you're talking about.
You have no idea what that phrase means.
The "immutable" I'm talking about here is not in the sense of "immutable OS", but rather immutable like punched cards. You literally needed to punch another set of cards if your program contained a bug. You need to create another smart contract to replace your buggy program. Paying gas fees for it.
umber of crypto services (including Monero) that offer a middleman type service to allow you to spend XMR and have a business get fiat.
So you buy Monero with fiat, just to convert that Monero to fiat again, so the vendor can receive fiat? What for?
There are plenty of stable coins that are stable, such as USDC.
For now. All the stable coins that failed were stable until they weren't. What incentive is there to actually providing that kinda service, if you won't make money with it?
Ethereum exists to allow for programmatic transactions (ie: you pay a program to do something, and it'll get done)
NFTs. SAY THEIR NAME
And remember what a resounding success Wolf Game was? As a hobbyst programmer I can tell you there isn't an idea dumber that putting code into something immutable, that you have to destroy, create anew, rename the new thing you made to the old one, while paying for each step of the process, just so that you can fix a bug is a terrible idea.
It's pretty natural that what ended up being contained in those smart contracts was links to jpegs - it's much harder to mess that up than an actual interactive program.
I have too many people hammering me with comments to respond to all your points. I spend like an hour writing responses to you goobers, unless I see something really stupid I'm not responding any further.
So a quick round: 3&6 social engineering is far more common than simply hacking your account. So no, it's the opposite. Also, 6- completely false, why do you think they avoid using bank accounts?
5- I gave you an example where someone would know your identity - if you're using it in a non-anonymous context, like getting paid. It could also be the case when buying something, with your name/delivery address. Unless you go off chain, there is no point of setting up new accounts, as transactions can be traced and connected to the intermediate accounts.
4- Financial policy is decided by elected representatives. Corruption is an issue, but in crypto it's built-in.
Theatge amount of energy you mention is really only relevant to proof of work. You've mentioned proof of stake etc - so you should know that. The energy requirements for "proof" techniques such as PoS is negligible
It can't compete with payment processors. Proof of stake is also basically just oligarchy, while proof of storage is a waste of hardware. All of them center their validation process on big money investors, who either have a lot of hardware or a lot of money to stake.
Although, I don't know of anyone that gets their salary into their crypto wallet.
So it would be useless for things normal money is useful for? Where's the revolution in banking that I heard about? Banking the unbanked?
Regarding on chain transaction transparency, there are some chains that are like this (bitcoin), and there are some chains that are not (monero).
Here you provided users privacy at the cost of making criminals completely untraceable. Bravo.
How about a bank account, where people who know you won't know your transaction history but police can catch people participating in organized crime?
I don't think crpyto will solve all of.humans problems, but I might just help with some
Which ones? I have not heard of one use case, only excuses from you guys.
My point is there isn't any other usage to it. People won't use Monero for buying their groceries or online shopping, but its nature lends itself to being used to commit crimes. Cash at the very least has serial numbers - you could possibly track that.
The reasons why it isn't suitable to be used as a currency are exactly what I listed, and you failed to interrogate: volatility, lack of consumer protections, anonymity for wrongdoers, extremely high transaction fees and energy usage, consensus protocols favoring big money and the inability to perform even a basic rollback without splitting the entire economy of your chain in twain.
With e-commerce, you could have someone send you some coins and then not deliver the product. What are they gonna do, get a non-existent chargeback?
Two days ago I was cycling along a rural road; slightly before an intersection (a road to the left, like this: -|) a guy behind me started to pass me on the left lane and a woman on the intersecting road tried turning right.
After he passed me, in what seemed like a few seconds I realized that they would surely crash - the woman wasn't looking in front of her (looking to the left to see if she can enter), and the guy wouldn't be able to go to the right lane in time. And so they did. A frontal crash, but no major injuries as far as I could see (they both walked out of their cars).
What's interesting about this is that both are at fault: the woman should not just check her left, but also look where she's driving. The guy shouldn't have tried to pass me before an intersection - that's illegal. But both made those simple mistakes and it resulted in major damage to their vehicles and endangered their lives. But as tempting as it would be to call them bad drivers and move on, this made me think a bit about safety and cars.
Is it really a good idea for so many people to be driving, from a basic safety standpoint? We require people to have a certain skillset to operate heavy machinery and exhaustive training in every other instance except for cars - where standards are so low even your average Joe Blow can pass the test. And this is in Europe, btw. Cars are just fundamentally unsafe for a general user. The deaths from car crashes are treated as an inevitable reality, when in other modes of transportation things were done to make them safer and it worked, similar things happened in many industries with industrial machinery. Only with cars do we accept this lack of safety and shitty outcomes.
The problem is we give a heavy, fast piece of machinery to people who are a wide cross-section of society and may be unqualified, or at times tired or distracted, and make mistakes. This can happen even to professionals, but if there were far less cars on the roads, the potential consequences of those mistakes would be far less severe. It takes small moments of distraction for a tragedy to happen, and it would be difficult to expect from people as a group to never make mistakes - but this isn't accounted for when crafting traffic laws. Those don't seem to effectively stop people from making mistakes, they just infrequently penalize them.
