zergtoshi @ zergtoshi @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

212

Joined

2 yr. ago

The vast majority are, but not all of them.
Albeit it's hard to find those that aren't.

What about if you take out inflation and offer transactions for zero fees while operating a network with little appetite for (electric) energy?
That would mean you'd never be left with dust amounts you can't spend and no entity could debase your holdings by issuing more currency units.
Then the price would just be the result of supply and demand.
Of course that's not what that teenager did or what the vast majority of cryptocurrencies do, but how it could and should be done.

Maybe you'd understand better, if you or someone you love had to suffer from arbitrarily denied UHC insurance claims.
For some this action seems to be a drastic move to hold someone accountable for the pain he caused, who couldn't be held accountable though other means.

You might have a different understanding of billionaire bacon than the person you replied to.

tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Proposed_solutions

Speaking of the pradoxof tolerance, Karl Popper realized that intolerance often involves violence.
I, for one would argue that health insurance denying claims arbitrarily asserts violence in some way - even worse to especially vulnerable people.

So how do you imagine not tolerating this kind of intolerance?
Writing stern letters and emails? That seems to have happened.
Starting a legal battle that might be decided in your favour after you've died from not receiving health care due to denied claims?
What would you suggest?

Popper also draws attention to the fact that intolerance is often asserted through the use of violence [...]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Proposed_solutions

Language.

Sure!
I was merely trying to raise awareness for the need to bring privacy protection to a level beyond E2EE, although E2EE is a very important and useful step.

Yes, like Signal!
Which does not only use end-to-end encryption for communication, but protects meta data as well:

Signal also uses our metadata encryption technology to protect intimate information about who is communicating with whom—we don’t know who is sending you messages, and we don’t have access to your address book or profile information. We believe that the inability to monetize encrypted data is one of the reasons that strong end-to-end encryption technology has not been widely deployed across the commercial tech industry.

Source: https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/

I haven't verified that claim investigating the source code, but I'm positive others have.

Signal doesn't harvest, use, sell meta data, Google may do that.
E2E encryption doesn't protect from that.
Signal is orders of magnitude more trustworthy than Google in that regard.

You can expect KI to expire like NaCl does.
The filler might be not ok after a long amount of time, but the KI will be and that's what saves your thyroid.
Here's some info regarding dosage:

At least 0.2% lied.

Thank you for sharing the link. That webpage is amazing!

Buying local is an option to evade paying tariffs on imported goods.
But what do you do if buying local is no real option?
I'm thinking of coffee, chocolate, computers, mobile phones, game consoles, cars, etc.

Is it really a threat to muse about what could happen as some random person on the internet?
It's not like OP announced to do it or called for it to be done.
I'd see it differently if a person with a lot of followers (especially crazy ones) would dare to think something like this aloud. Does this law cover former presidents as well?

Anyway... Remember: it's a losing battle trying to be tolerant of the intolerant!

It's fair pointing out the lack of (sufficient) storage for electric energy, but I'd say the average price of electricity in Finland for the past week indicates both capabilities of renawables and lack of storage.

I stand corrected regarding ultimate disposal and apparently they are planning to use it in a clever way.
Thank you for letting me know!

Compared to fossil fuels I tend to prefer nuclear as well, because even though mining uranium has quite some ecological impact including emitting carbon emissions, running a nuclear power plant doesn't have carbon emissions and that's important.
What worries me is that there are nuclear power plants around the world and despite the first nuclear power plant having been built 70 years ago, not a single ultimate disposal place for the radioactive waste has been found/created.
Having "cheap" electric energy for 3-4 generations and putting a burden on the next 40,000 generations just does sound like a bad deal to me.
Until we have more wind and hydro, keeping nuclear running might be a price we have to pay.
Not being able to dispose of some more (thousands of) tons of radioactive waste is making the problem only quantitatively worse and not qualitatively.

It's a great example to show electric energy based on wind, water, solar is the way to go - not only because it's more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels of any kind or nuclear, but it's economically better as well.
Thanks for sharing!

What if their authority recognizes you?