kauffj

- Child care is a superior good (in the economics sense). As we get richer, we almost certainly spend more of our money on it, as we do in other areas that are substantially driven by signalling (see health care, education).

- It is absurdly regulated and there is nothing close to a free market. My family participates in a child care sharing arrangement that results in several families regularly breaking the law. That is because it is illegal to watch more than 4 children (if at least one of them is not yours) without state licensing.

From a deontological perspective, it's not clear that this is good if one of your values is clearly and consistently enforced law.

Please avoid clicking the OP link and giving traffic to a company that engages in gray/black web and SEO patterns.

Genetics are likely the dominant influence, with peer groups (shared environment) being the second largest influence.

At least, that's what the Three Laws of Behavior Genetics would say.

LBRY is similar to PeerTube in open and decentralization, but all content metadata is written to a blockchain, which means everyone/anyone can access the index. This blockchain can then be searched (https://github.com/lbryio/lighthouse) or extracted to SQL (https://github.com/lbryio/chainquery).

http://archive.is/i60kZ

I own a DVD that I can continue to play as long as I own a DVD player. What I'm "buying" from Amazon is a promise that Amazon will continue to give this to me and only me, so long as they are around and available. I can't resell it and I have nothing the moment they cease to exist. That's not ownership.

(Setting aside the somewhat absurd notion of "renting" vs. "buying", when both do the same thing. Renting just requires you to throw away the bits after...)

If you agree with the above, you might like LBRY (https://lbry.com or https://lbry.tech), which in addition to letting you stream or download no-DRM files, permanently records your access rights in a blockchain.

If anyone has questions about the Free State Project, you can ask them here or email me personally at kauffj@gmail.com. I'm always happy to assist fellow hackers that are interested in the FSP.

(Archive link for those who prefer non-broken web experiences or want to avoid supporting publishers that actively want to break the web.)

(Archive link for those who prefer non-broken web experiences)

It’s a Bitcoin fork that gives me an extra 1 million coins. I’ll sell one sat to you for $300.

Also: I’m sending a 12 word seed phrase poem to each member of Congress right before the fork.

https://twitter.com/brucefenton/status/1181981988221329413

Here is what reporter Edward Ongweso Jr. wrote for Vice [1]:

> Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.

Here is what Stallman actually wrote:

> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

There is literally no way to read the previous sentence as Stallman arguing that Epstein's victims were entirely willing.

People like Edward Ongweso should be the ones losing their jobs, not Richard Stallman.

[1]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-re...

- Provides a link or method to create the scan that takes just a few minutes (on Ubuntu)

- Sends $5 to kauffj@gmail.com via PayPal or via BTC to 17h2GtaBzivnNtP24qoGg4a3pjgShkw7MD

I will complete the process and post the result in this thread.

I would happily sell anyone a picture or scan of my face for $5. But I would even more happily have that chance go to someone who needs it more than myself.

This article also mentions that the contractor may have lied to or misled the homeless, which is deplorable. But the behavior described by the title itself is nothing objectionable. The fact that many will object is a phenomenon I've seen called "Copenhagen Ethics": https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

(Archive link for those who prefer non-broken web experiences)

(Archive link for those who prefer non-broken web experiences)

Being granted exclusive access to put a fact to productive use (or any use) seems roughly equivalent to "owning the truth" to me.

The blog post that you link (https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods) is a great follow-up. But it looks like there is no connection to it from the source page (https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit...), nor the source charts. Perhaps simply figuring out a way to connect your own commentary to the data it is commenting on would be a place to start.

Recently, Bill Gates issued a Tweet demonstrating excitement for progress in diminishing global poverty, citing Our World in Data: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1086662632587907072

This received substantial push back, with claims that this data is a reckless extrapolation of sketchy sources, such as this article by Jason Hickel: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-g...

Is there anything Our World in Data can do to better facilitate this discussion, note that it is happening, or respond to criticism?

I agree that what we're doing is at a legal frontier. Existing laws like CDA and DMCA are not set up to handle blockchain. That's why we've worked closely with lawyers from the very beginning. While we don't publicly share the advice we've received from our retained council (Perkins Coie), you're welcome to look at this memo drafted by the pro bono Cardozo law clinic on our behalf:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oudj04lCTJOFZ5V1g5dG9tR2N...

Finally, LBRY is both a protocol and a corporation, just like BitTorrent is. We try to say LBRY Inc. when referring to the corporation and when simply saying LBRY is ambiguous.

I'm not aware of any other system can provide the permissionless and censorship-resistant aspects of blockchain while still maintaining a coherent, single view of the network, though I admit I'm only loosely familiar with BigchainDB.

- Why published identity? I guess that idea is that all content is actually legal and there are no pirate movies / tv shows?

It's possible to publish anonymously if that is your preference. Even using an "identity" you can be anonymous, they're just cryptographically provable pseudonyms.

Open protocols do not have a legal obligation to perform censorship at the protocol level, only users of the protocol must censor (see HTTP, BitTorrent, etc.).

- How will you control who and what is uploaded? ...legal movie distributers will not use it because content will end up in P2P...

We don't. Currently over 750,000 pieces of content are available on LBRY and to our knowledge only a little over 100 are infringing.

We do receive and process DMCA takedown requests and provide a service that lists content that is illegal to access in the United States. Official applications that we release respect this endpoint, but it's not even legally clear that we have to do this (e.g. uTorrent could do the same, but does not).

Additionally, LBRY already has one Hollywood studio making films available. You can watch a James Franco film (Howl) or a David Cross film (It's a Disaster). All existing attempts to restrict re-distribution of digital content do not work and there are strong theoretical reasons to believe they never will. Hopefully more studios will eventually be as enlightened as Oscilloscope.

- There's also a problem with content like child pornography. How are you going to prevent upload of those?

This is essentially already answered above. You can read a bit more here: https://lbry.io/what#combatting-the-ugly

LBRY does not provide IP enforcement. The primary reasons people pay for content when they could get all content for free are: 1) their personal morality and 2) fear of legal repercussions

The same will be true on LBRY.

We already know we cannot trust Google, Facebook, Apple, or Amazon.

And even if there is a company that we could trust, what happens when a censorious government wants something removed?

2. Depends on what you mean by DRM. It's DRM-like in the sense that LBRY can provide proof-of-purchase of digital content. It's not DRM-like in the sense that our focus is not on providing you with crippled versions of a digital media file.

3. A public blockchain does not work without tokens. We believe the idea of a shared registry of information (digital content) that exists in the world that is not owned or controlled by a single party is an extremely powerful and beneficial idea. It's why the company is called LBRY, in fact.

Your advice is useful in that it tells us we have more work to do in our introduction of this technology, but what you advise is not what we are trying to do. The central goal of LBRY is to provide a globally accessible, robust listing of digital content that anyone can contribute to but that no one party controls. We are considering extending it to support additional datasources. De-duplication can be done but only if the duplication is non-malicious.

> Runners (3%). Bikers (6%). Furries (2%). Wall Street senior management (2%). Occupy Wall Street protesters (unknown but low, one source says 1.6% but likely an underestimate). BDSM (unknown but low) Tea Party members (1%). American Buddhists (~2%). Bird watchers (4%). Environmentalists (various but universally low). Wikipedia contributors (unknown but low). Atheists (2%). Vegetarian activists (maybe 1-5%). Yoga enthusiasts (unknown but low). College baseball players (5%). Swimmers (2%). Fanfiction readers (2%). Unitarian Universalists (1%).

> Can you see what all of these groups have in common?

> No. No you can’t. If there’s some hidden factor uniting Wall Street senior management and furries, it is way beyond any of our pay grades.

> But what I noticed when I looked up those numbers was that in every case, the people involved have come up with a pat explanation that sounds perfectly plausible right up until you compare it to any other group, at which point it bursts into flame

Excerpt from Black People Less Likely: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/11/black-people-less-like...

Why not start with relaxing the federal laws which forbid the development of third-party applications?

The limits on third-party apps are legal, not technical. It is not technically challenging to build an application that collects Facebook credentials and then presents alternative views and features. It could, for example, finally be possible to see a time-ordered view of your friends' posts (Facebook doesn't allow this since it reduces engagement).

The development of such applications would serve as a threat and check on the market dominance of Facebook. A popular third-party application could consider adding its own features that Facebook does not have. It would also reduce Facebook's revenue.

What stops this? In the US, it is primarily the CFAA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act). Once Facebook formally tells a company to stop accessing their servers, they are in violation of federal law if they continue to do so.

It seems premature to pursue legal action while we still have federal laws that encourage and cement the dominance of a single provider.