FaceDeer @ FaceDeer @kbin.social

Basically [a deer with a human face](https://i.imgur.com/FlzELAa.png). Desp

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

2,392

Joined

2 yr. ago

A court of law, I guess I should specify.

Don't think I have ever heard of a court of "rightness" before.

Good luck arguing that in court.

"You're not wrong, you're just an asshole" could apply here. Assholes can do things that are technically okay to do.

Calling it "stealing content" is loaded terminology. You're posting content on an open protocol whose very purpose is to broadcast it far and wide.

Unless there's some actual technical reason why this a bad idea, I don't buy the "ethical" hand-wringing here. It sounds like just another case of not liking specific social media companies and wanting the defaults to conform to those personal dislikes.

What more do you want me to say?

But if one did anyway, torching their car would be fine?

Does that make torching the car okay?

I was describing your position on the slope. If you think that's an attack, perhaps your position isn't very good.

Clearly a crime worthy of complete destruction.

I didn't realize that a "fireworks show" meant "showing how fire works (by burning down any cars that happen to be present)."

What personal attacks? I'm giving you ample opportunity to clarify your position on this matter, and it keeps ending up in support of mob violence and lawlessness. I think that's a terrible position to take, but that's an attack on the position, not the person.

Alright, so you're fine with mobs destroying the property of anyone that "pisses them off." I'd say that's a slippery slope, but you're already basically at the bottom.

I didn't say they'd torch you. The scenario can include them graciously allowing you to depart your car before they burn it to the ground.

Seriously, you think it's reasonable for a mob to destroy a car because its presence "triggered frustrations in the crowd"? Bear in mind this isn't France we're talking about, where torching cars to express frustration is part of the common culture. This is San Francisco.

And were the "violators will be set on fire" signs posted?

If you were to turn down the wrong street, maybe park in the wrong spot, you'd consider it reasonable if a mob torched it?

So the car's presence was annoying them. That's not exactly a great justification for torching it.

It's because proof-of-stake is fundamentally different from how proof-of-work operates.

The fundamental problem that all blockchains need to solve is something called the Byzantine Generals Problem. A blockchain needs to consist of a list of transactions that everyone agrees on - everyone needs to be able to know which transactions are part of the list, and what order they appear on that list. But there can't be any central "authority" making that decision, it has to be done in a completely decentralized way.

The way proof of work does it is that it requires people adding transactions to the list to do some extremely expensive calculations and attach the results of those calculations to the transactions that they're adding. Anyone can do those calculations so there's no central authority, but the costliness of the calculations means that once the transactions are added it becomes just as expensive to create a substitute set of transactions. So everyone ends up agreeing on what transactions were added because it would be unfeasably costly to "fake" an alternative history to the blockchain. This means it's impossible to make a proof-of-work chain that isn't hugely "wasteful", because the waste is the point of it. It has to be costly for it to work.

Proof-of-stake takes a very different approach. It solves the same basic problem - determining which transactions are part of the chain in a decentralized manner - using some very fancy cryptography that I have to admit that I don't fully understand. But instead of proving that the transactions you're adding are "trustworthy" due to proving you've wasted a whole lot of resources adding them, you do it by putting up a "stake." You lock a big sum of money in your cryptocurrency staking account and essentially make it a hostage to your good behaviour. If you put up a bad transaction you can lose your stake. So under proof-of-stake there's simply no need to burn huge amounts of electricity.

Monero uses a proof-of-work algorithm like Bitcoin. The reason Monero doesn't use anywhere near as much energy as Bitcoin is simply because it isn't worth as much and so not as many people are mining it. If Monero was worth as much as Bitcoin the energy usage would rise to become comparable.

All of that can be true and this is still easier than a constitutional amendment.

That is all that I was saying from the start. It remains the case. You don't need a constitutional convention to make this change, there is an easier way to do it.

From the article:

The city said Avell’s church was not properly zoned for residential usage, and that serious fire code violations were found throughout the building during repeat inspections.

It was fire code violations.