mike741

and? the changes are either worth it or they aren't. if they're not worth it then don't make them.

they are sharing how they feel. you are not forced to read them.

the closest alternative to Youtube I have seen is Odysee (formerly known as LBRY) https://odysee.com/

it reminds me of the old youtube experience. I like that their ads are images and banners rather than video interruptions. the content and viewerbase are a bit limited at the moment but that can easily change.

can you link a specific example? youtube's anti-piracy measures are quite strict in my experience.

>> I absolutely see humans as being more special than machine

> Can you explain why exactly?

Because humans designed and built machines before machines could design and build humans.

I recognize that you were not trying to allude to the countless times where the limitation of rights were used to cause harm. I also recognize that good and bad justifications are not the same thing. My thinking is simply that there are better examples than Syphilis and HIV, such as seat belts or speed limits. What I saw you say was "You live in a society that actively limits the spread of these diseases" and I'm saying that is a poor example of justification for such limitations because:

1) The listener might be disease-free regardless of society's efforts (the limitation's benefit might not be relatable)

2) We live in a society that actively spreads diseases in the name of protection and profit (the justification behind limitations might be engineered)

3) These diseases still exist in unknown quantities (the limitations might be ineffective)

A better example would be something like seat belts or speed limits because:

1) The listener is far more likely to have been in or around a vehicle than they are to have contracted syphilis. (the limitation's benefit is relatable)

2) There are no instances of seat belts or speed limits having been used to justify excessive harm. (the limitation's benefit cannot be argued as having been engineered)

3) The impact on safety is far easier to measure and compare. (the limitation's effectiveness can be measured immediately)

But if you don't believe any of this to be relevant, then I must accept that. Thank you for your time.

What I've thrown into the mix is a suspension of human rights that was claimed to be for the purpose of protection but in reality caused harm. It wasn't simply "unethical research." If HIV and Syphilis are the best examples of reasons to suspend human rights then we are lacking in good examples. Far more often than not, human rights are a form of protection and their suspension is a guise for causing harm.

Irrelevant to a response regarding both the importance of human rights and the spread of syphilis? I can't imagine an instance where it would be more relevant, I'd be interested to hear why it's not though.

Not the best example. We live in a society that intentionally infected 600 African American men with syphilis, without their consent, simply to see what happens despite knowing effective treatment already existed. Nice concept indeed.

> Oh yeah, and those same people later cry foul when they get robbed of their money because it was not protected in any way.

Can you give an example? Do you actually know any of these people?

> Suddenly everybody wants crypto but with protections

Not me, So not everybody.

> There is a reason why money and banking is regulated -- to protect little guys from getting scammed right and left.

The reason is that their protocols are inherently unsafe. Similarly, there is a reason Bitcoin was made to be unregulated -- to protect the little guys from having their share devalued by trillion dollar bail-outs for the super rich.

> orders of magnitude better than crypto free for all

Better for who? Maybe better for you, but certainly not everyone.

> Take a look at The Last of Us if you want to know what happens

The video game??

> It lets you live, travel and do business in relative safety.

Speak for yourself. Not everyone is safe. That's an increasingly rare privilege as the wealth divide grows, and many people attribute this divide to our monetary system.

You still have to not only synthesize the answers these models return, but now also first analyze the answers for the relevant parts, and then perform searches to validate them.

right, which is why humans do not claim to "grasp the significance" of their moves.

everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone makes the same mistakes. depending on their mistake, players very much can and do conclude a lack of relevant understanding. this conclusion is an integral part of the learning process.

it seems that way until the AI makes a mistake that even inexperienced players would be able to spot & avoid using traditional principles

Well by that standard, the other articles should have been "Man helps machine beat man at Go."

where did they claim to be healthy?

If the first 19,000 updates weren't secure, I don't have much confidence the next one will be. Is Linux any different in this regard?

I've heard of Proton a few times but last time I checked only 600 out of Steam's 50,000+ games are compatible with it. Not bad by any means but using an older Windows version still seems to offer more at the moment.

There are also bash scripts to stop Windows from force-updating. Its a lot less work than switching to an entirely new OS and doesn't require giving up video games. But if someone can afford to learn Linux, or any OS that doesn't force updates, then its probably better to do so in the long run.

isn't it commonly used in court by lawyers and police investigations?

What is the questioners line of reasoning if they haven't made any claims? If they have made a mixture of claims and questions then they can have flaws but its misleading to call them "questioners" at that point, since they've done more than just ask questions.

> Their stubbornness in pursuing a contradiction only succeeds if there is a contradiction they were already aware of

I don't think this is true at all. You can recognize a statement of the form "X is not X" without having come across it before. As for the stubbornness, this can apply to both parties: the contradiction only appears when the answering party can't bring themselves to say "I don't know", "I assume", or "I don't have time for this"

"a plus" depends on who you are. For someone who profits off of inflation, its certainly not a plus. I said it does a better job limiting supply and preventing inflation and that is a fact not an assumption. The supply has been controlled, the only inflation is caused by demand, exactly as intended. Any so-called "expert" who disagrees with that should have their expertise called into question.

I agree with that definition of inflation, so how hasn't it prevented inflation? Has the supply of bitcoins ever deviated from the intended rate? If it hasn't deviated from that rate then the supply, and thus the involuntary component of inflation, has been successfully kept under control.

> The proper question is what does cryptocurrency do better than alternatives?

Bitcoin, as one example, does a better job limiting supply and preventing inflation than its fiat alternatives.

Of course, this doesn't make the article any less of a strawman.

Computers as a whole burn the energy of many small industrialized nations. Is that to say computers shouldn't be used? Or is it simply a statement of how widely used computers are?

This reminds me of the stories about Edison electrocuting elephants as a means of demonstrating the "danger" of alternating current.

Bad Application =/= Bad Technology

Most telephone calls are scam calls, it doesn't mean telephones were a bad idea. All scammers are humans, but not all humans are scammers. If there is a scam then call it out directly rather than wasting energy on the general platform.

All of those problems existed before Bitcoin, so Bitcoin evidently did not "bring them to the table"

And if Bitcoin is not a store of value, why are the Bitcoin I own seemingly maintaining (and increasing) their original value?

These criticisms are not limited to just online polls. One advantage that online polls have is a larger sample size. Gallop polls, for example, tend to have an extremely small sample size of less than 2,000 people while an online poll can reach hundreds of thousands. Both online and offline have advantages and disadvantages. At the end of the day, if you're being shown a poll that you didn't pay for or participate in then it's likely intended to influence rather than educate.

That 2nd sentence is incorrect. The blockchain is already the 3rd party attesting to the NFT's legitimacy. The purpose of the decentralized blockchain is to remove the need for 3rd party validation. Yes the NFT can be copied, and yes the digital asset that the NFT represents can be copied, BUT the NFT's record in the blockchain can NOT be copied. What is meant by "own" is that the owner's address is tied to the NFT in the blockchain record.

Not everything is a backdoor, but Windows absolutely is and that's part of why people dislike Windows and voluntarily use the older versions. MacOS, and some cell phone OS's, at least let the user choose if/when to update in which case they're not backdoors.