>They are not blocked.
Self blocking in response to a law to avoid the penalties under the law is being blocked by the law.
1,103 karma · joined March 16, 2018
Self blocking in response to a law to avoid the penalties under the law is being blocked by the law.
If you are encrypting your passwords you are already doing it wrong.
Where is the difference that would allow us to condemn the companies for maximizing profits by use labor laws but not condemn them for maximizing profits using tax laws?
>Also nothing is that simple.
Yet the previous statement seemed to have been made quite simply, an idea that if you take advantage of any law in your favor, you cannot condemn someone who takes advantage of any other law in their favor.
Isn't this an odd example to use since it was created to be a parody of cryptocurrency, or did I mix up my crypto-history?
If both were provably independently created at the same time, you would probably instead be having an uproar among scientists about the probability for such an event happening. It may still cause issues because the probability of such an event is so small, that the probability of the proof of their being independently created being wrong is the far more likely event.
I think this is really what happens. With more experience you are better able to deconstruct the building blocks in light of past experiences. Instead of a well crafted fire dungeon, someone can see the building blocks that could easily enough be repainted with poison theme or lightning theme. Much like when one reads enough fiction they notice the tropes the author is using as soon as the author introduces them, to the point that people begin to even joke about things like death flags being raised.
When I did experience in college, it didn't have the same wonder of the games I played as a child. Not just LoZ, but basically every 'missed' game I tried.
I think it is just a sign of growing up and learning about the man behind the curtain with fictional stories. As a child I felt like there was more game there than really was. In Chrono Trigger I felt like there was so much story I was missing. As an adult I realize that none of what I imagined was ever coded. It didn't exist.
As an adult I grapple that with fiction, it is all fake. As a child, I didn't have that weight. These days I try to capture of the magic of 'if this fictional world was real and not limited just to what the author(s) painted', but as a child that came far more natural.
People understand the concept of 'don't put all your eggs in one basket'. People understand the concept of 'no pain, no gain'. It is not difficult to apply these to stocks. This isn't about understanding accounting or understanding exactly how to measure the risk of a stock.
You don't need to understand physics to understand why a seat belt saves lives. You just need a very basic understanding of being ejected from a car. This isn't about getting them enough understanding to build a seat belt that saves lives, only about getting enough understanding to use the seat belt provided.
>The best I could do is try to lobby for laws that prevent attitudes like yours from applying regular people, because it would amount, quite literally, to preying on the incompetence of average workers who don’t have specialized financial decision making skills... which is largely what our whole banking and retirement systems are set up to do.
You will find that people do not like being treated as children and will avoid your regulations for the sake of making profit, often choosing far more unwise methods than the ones you are preventing. If your political stance is to treat adults, especially older adults nearing retirement as children, you will find yourself unable to enact any of the silly measures you think will help. We can't even get the elderly who no longer can safely drive vehicles to stop driving them, an action that puts the lives of innocents at risk. It will be taken, perhaps justly so, as trying to legally forbid the common methods from making a profit and forcing them to use worse options that will allow them to be taken advantage of, just like modern day pensions do.
Who determines what is fair?
Why? We expect people who drive cars to understand the basics of driving to the extent it is safe for them to drive. Simple diversification isn't a hard concept. Neither is risk/reward in determining where to put your money.
>The aspect of pensions, to me, that satisfies the primary moral constraint of the situation is that you are guaranteed income of a certain level, so that the organization granting the pension has to bear the risk of volatility in whatever funding instruments are used to back it.
But you aren't guaranteed it because things can happen. Immoral or even illegal things, or just having a run of bad luck. Regardless of the cause, there is a risk for the money not being there when you need it, a risk that seems to be worse than a 401(k) or equivalent. That risk includes governments not doing what you think they should've done, because no matter how much you think they should've done something they didn't do, it still wasn't done (in this case, companies weren't forced to fund and protect their pensions).
If you have your own money, you can at least protect against this by having diversified investments, and if you are an adult who is allowed to vote then you can understand the concept of not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean for it to exist as an actual rule, just as an recommendation by the institution in question. Such as a campus police department giving out safety tips.
Which goes back to the other poster's question of where is the problem if it is a factual claim. Assuming they share in the same answer as you, it seems the problem occurs at the point where stating factual statements crosses over into harassment.
While a generic answer that I generally find agreeable, the devil is always in the details, no? Where exactly is that line, and is there still not a problem if someone behaves in manner that is extremely close to but not crossing that line?
For the sake of the person's safety that should be suggested, but where does one draw the line at such suggestions? College aged women are safer if they don't drink alcohol, so should that be the official statement of a university? What about saying that if they stay with a male guardian, they will be safer than if they don't? If that statement is true, should it be an official policy statement made to increase safety?
What about "Joe has, at the time this sign was made, never denied beating his wife on Decemeber 31st." The claim could be very true in that Joe never has denied that specific claim because there was no reason to deny a claim that hadn't been made yet.
What about putting up the sordid details of a teenagers love life on a bulletin board outside her high school? Assume you verified the statements as factual. Is there perhaps an issue even when it is the truth?
Another fun legal question is what happens if I add fake audio to a video where the video is legal but the audio isn't, but I use legal audio recordings to fake the voice of the person I videotaped? Does it matter if the injected audio is close enough to what was originally said (say I remembered the words while I recorded the video)?
This way, a company couldn't just hold onto an IP and no do anything unless it wanted to keep paying the taxes, and the higher the demand for the IP the higher the taxes.
I think there is an applicable quote about defending scoundrels that would apply here.