dhork @ dhork @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

4,397

Joined

2 yr. ago

You realize our only other choice will be Gavin, right?

They're from New York, not Alabama

Let's look on the bright side. He is still reluctant to acknowledge it, which means that even he knows it is a shameful thing to be. I would be more afraid if he said "Hell yeah, I am, what are you gonna do about it?"

This comment, all by itself, is an impeachable offense. Sigh.

Bitcoin is pseudonomynous. All transactions are public, and thus traceable. but it relies on obscenely large random numbers to work, and if the numbers you generate are sufficiently random, there is no practical way for anyone to link any particular random number to you without additional info.

However, if you are a target of an investigation, and the government compels you to give it your numbers the old fashioned way, then poof! they can now get your entire transaction history without a warrant because it's all technically public. (They wont necessarily know where the transactions are going unless they conduct a similar exercise on the other side of the transactions.) They can also seize everything left in your wallet -- while they may legally need a warrant for that they don't technically need it if they possess the keys and we've seen how the Justice Department in the US is no longer constrained by laws.

This relative pseudoanominity makes it good for money laundering, but not as good as cash. Still, it is hard to move large amounts of cash across borders undetected, but it is as "easy" to move $1 in Bitcoin across a border as it is to move $1B.

No, they are cousins

If they pick another reformist Pope (especially one from Africa or Asia), I would expect the American Bishops to openly revolt and name their own Pope. It's been over 500 years since we had an Antipope. I think we're due.

Sure, call it heresy. But the Pope called Martin Luther a heretic, too, and yet that didn't stop people from believing that he might have been on to something.

If someone believes something deeply, whether or not it is batshit crazy, who am I to tell them they're wrong? If it is that bonkers, I will just write them off as a crackpot and let them be.

Agree. But, is dispensationalism really "pseudo-theology" if people believe it?

She is right about one thing. Trump plans on being president past January 2029, and if he manages it he won't need to be on any ballot to do it....

Catholics (in America at least) would happily let him spit in their faces, as long as he continues to make abortions harder to get. Never mind the fact that the Church is equally against the death penalty, or treating migrants like cattle....

That's all from those books, right? I haven't read them.

But I do know that Trump likes Golden Toilets, and has made his own crypto shitcoin. So maybe he is the Shitty Antichrist?

I wonder what all of his Protestant Evangelical backers think of this.

My eschatology is a bit rusty, but I think this is the type of thing that they thought the Antichrist would do. But maybe that's why the evangelicals back him, thinking the rapture is just around the corner....

(Or maybe, the "rapture" is happening right now, except instead of the chosen, worthy people being disappeared to Heaven, they're all being disappeared to El Salvador. The joke's on all those evangelicals, I guess. Ha.)

Edited to add: Doesn't "El Salvador" literally translate to "The Savior"? Kidnapping the innocent and whisking them to "The Savior", never to be seen again, definitely tracks.

I remembered my login, my UID is in the 200,000s so I'm not as cool as you.

The place doesn't seem to have changed at all, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

"Show me on this doll where Der Gropenführer touched you...."

Wait, Slashdot is still around?

Not quite. All the groups listed only get a portion of their funding from the US Government, the highest amount listed was 15%. So the broadcasts would likely continue, just with fewer resources. The article also states that the funding is guaranteed by Congress, and the President can't impound it, but we've seen that Congress is letting the President break the law with impunity.

The article says that member stations rely the most on federal dollars. It would be ironic if cuts force member stations to close, and those stations happen to be predominately rural (and Republican). I bet Trump would use that as "evidence" of further bias ....

Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but I think they picked dolls on purpose. Not just because of the phrase "China Doll", but also to play into their alpha male bullshit. They are intentionally feminizing the opposition to keep the manosphere engaged.

I think these guys are overstating things a bit. The whole reason technical standards exist is to facilitate interoperability, and in most cases this interoperability leads to increased trade. It's no accident that the first standards were developed during the industrial revolution, where we first started using machines to make parts, and they needed to fit together (like screws and nuts). Then, when the railroads came along, we needed new standards for things like track gague, because without it one countries' trains couldn't use the next countries' track, making cross-border commerce more expensive. It's also when we started to standardize time (because before the railroads, "noon" was whenever the sun was directly overhead, so varied by region).

These standards weren't developed altruistically, they were developed to generate more trade. There is a cost to developing them, and companies spend that money in the hopes of making more later. In theory, anyone can access the standards that the ITU or IEEE create, but to participate you need to show up at their meetings, and there is a cost to that. Large companies can afford to send key smart people to those meetings, out of the profit from the products they sell. What is more capitalistic than that?

The standards process is anti-monopolist, though. The reason why they are as "open" as they are is to prevent a single entity from patenting key parts of the standard and gate-keeping access. There have been patented things in standards, but the SDO mandates that the parent-holder disclose it up front, and will not let it in the standard unless certain terms are met (which vary by SDO). It is not anti-capitalist, though, but rather it is a cabal of companies agreeing they won't let any one of them gatekeep the rest.

Why not? Somebody else has to, or else we end up with Gavin Newsom....