Thank you for the help. I might be able to earn around 3000 euros (after taxes), would live in a smaller city, maybe close to Porto but wouldn't need to live in Porto itself, and not a lavish lifestyle by any means, just a comfortable life for the kids, no eating out much, no fancy car, etc. I keep thinking that I should wait until I can earn more, that 3000 might not be enough, but a friend who lived there for some time told me this is just my fear of not being able to provide my kids with a good life, and I guess he's right. I keep thinking it might not be enough for a comfortable life for them (again, not lavish/rich, just a good quality of life for them).
Sorry to ask, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but do you live there by yourself or do you have a family? I have a wife and two kids, and I'm trying to figure out how much does it cost to live in Portugal, per month. I'm planning to move there, not now but in the short future. Could you give me an idea of the cost, if you're familiar with this situation (family of four). Thanks in advance.
I'd say over 90% of people who bought cryptocurrencies have at best a half-baked understanding of the technology behind it.
OTOH, you could have no understanding of the tech inside microcomputers in the late 70's and still think it was a good investment, if you had an idea of its potential uses.
I first read Borges on a Science Fiction anthology. Can't remember the name of the short story now. It was three words from an alien language, I think...
>a lot of which are authoritarian/corrupt governments
The son of my Brazil's authoritarian and corrupt president is a customer. The son himself is a politician and I have zero doubt that privacy was/is going to be abused.
I live in Brazil, and here we often think that this kind of stuff doesn't happen in Europe, or is very, very rare. Reading the comments here about Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, I'm reminded that it isn't so.
I wish I didn't have to work 40 hours a week. Can I just go to some random plot of arable land that isn't cultivated and start farming? Can I just process it any way I want? US, circa 2021.
If Google had existed in 1847, and the web for that matter, he would have been able to create and post as many videos espousing his theories on the web. Either through alternative sites, either by setting up 20 sites of his own for pretty much free, or by emailing, messaging or by buying a $50 laser printer and printing 5,000 pamphlets to hand out, and Google would have had zero power to stop him.
Rape is horrible, but you're using as an example a country which has arguably the worst rape statistics in the world, where rape is used as a regular war tactic.
Let's say someone starts a video site where users post vegan recipes. It's a vegan video site. People create an account and can post what they want. Some users post barbecue videos, video on how to skin game, and the site owners remove these videos. If somehow a high percentage of society become vegan and this site blows up, becomes the biggest recipe site in the world, a quasi-monopoly of recipe videos. Do they now have to allow meat videos?
Yes, I'd be okay, and I would stop using them, as I have done with FB, and start looking elsewhere. Like I said before, I don't agree with Youtube taking anti-vaxx videos down, but I do think they, as a private company, should be allowed to. If they take enough content down, they'll end up losing users.
This is semantics. In this case HN is censoring opinions right now through its moderation. Every forum on the internet censors. Your spam filter blocks others speech from reaching you etc.
Then pro-vaccine people everywhere could start using google less and start talking about how Google has harmful/unscientific stances toward content, etc.
So what? Let them curate whatever they want. There are other platforms to post my video to. Hell, I can create another one. I can create 50 others. I can create a mailing list and send to everyone on it. Are we going to argue wether spam filtering is censorship too?
But no one is saying these contents should be banned. You can publish it, everywhere! Create a hundred sites and post it, feel free! Now, if I don't want it on my site, why can't I take it down?
You're saying that if I create a video site for videos of healthy dishes, that I should not be able to take down a video recipe for something that I think is very unhealthy.
I'm not for Youtube taking the videos down, I just don't think a private company taking a video down from their site is censorship.
And my take is, if Youtube starts limiting content too much, it will end up losing viewership, which will migrate to competing sites/apps.
Oh, I agree that it is a bad idea to do it. I just don't think a private company not putting a video on their site is what censorship is. I wish Youtube would not take those videos down, as they're not illegal. Anti-vaxxers will diminish with better public education, more focused on critical thinking and science literacy, and not because there are no more videos about it on Youtube. The videos will always find their way to reach their audience's screens.
So if you have a video site like Youtube, you can take down whatever content you like, and that's cool. However, if you become very successful, and attract many viewers, than it's no longer like that. Now you can choose what you let on your site.
Is HN pro censorship? I mean, stuff HN doesn't want posted here can, and does get taken down by its moderators. You're just not complaining because HN isn't huge?
Anti-vaccine activists, or any activists for that matter, are completely free to post their videos anywhere else they want. Hell, they can even set up their own video site, and publish thousands, millions, tens of millions of videos championing their cause. Why does a private company has to feature every agenda, every viewpoint, even ones they deem to be extremely harmful to society? Just because they got big enought to be global? If I set up my own youtube-like website, and I only have one thousand visits a day, will anyone argue that I'm obliged to show stuff I don't want? Is anyone saying the same thing about Vimeo? Youtube doesn't have to show isis beheadings, why should it be forced to show unscientific propaganda? If there were a movement claiming the polio and smallpox vaccines destroyed our immune systems, and we should re-introduce these diseases to the public at large so we could develop our natural defenses, should Youtube be force to publish their videos?
I'm sorry, but what you're saying is not censorship.
I might be mistaken here, but from what I've read on lead, we already know relatively well what amount of lead is safe, according to body weight etc. We also know that our bodies can deal with these small amounts, by actually getting rid of some of it. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the matter can chime in?
My two heaviest marijuana smoker friends are 100% sure that any study that mentions some detrimental effect from marijuana is part of a big-pharma conspiracy. Their argument is that "it's a natural herb, it's impossible for it to do harm".