Edit: Why is this perceived as infallible?
412 karma · joined May 8, 2015
> An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation.
If you want to ensure self preservation, take steps to create an environment where the likelihood of survival is higher not lower. All the reliable evidence that I've seen points to higher gun ownership correlating strongly with higher murder and suicide rates and to the USA being an outlier in terms of violent crime as compared to other developed countries.
> Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime.
Well where that's true (and having lived in several countries, its not true everywhere) that's certainly a failing in law enforcement.
> a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers.
This is extremely doubtful. Attackers generally attack in groups. They typically have planned their attack whilst you're taken by surprise. Also criminals are generally better versed in violence than the typical citizen. Pulling out your gun is often likely to turn a robbery into robbery and murder.
> The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process.
This is the most ludicrous of all the gun lobby arguments. Seriously, you're planning on subverting the US government with your collection of handguns? The same government that spends more than 500 Billion on military expenditure/year?
> People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is a failed state. The Taliban are likely funded by a lot of well heeled supporters included their partners in the Heroine trade.
Personally I prefer the freedom of not having to be worried about being shot by any disgruntled imbecile who takes advantage of his "right" to a gun.
I would really appreciate an explanation of this. Right now it seams like just a fantastic marketing/brainwashing strategy by the NRA but I would love to hear a well explained argument for this.
If there's something I've left out from this particular argument please let me know.
Of course it is. People paying money on foreign exchanges contribute to the price too. Foreign remittances are a fantastic use case for crypto (mostly to these same countries).
Also, what inspires many people to enter crypto, is general lack of trust in government and financial institutions. People choose to buy crypto rather than buying other asset classes or to hold fiat (this is a decision with a strong geopolitical basis).
> It seems like the large majority of trading is happening among people who live in other nations and who already have wealth.
Possibly, but thats besides the point. This argument is a refutation to several arguments that detractors make: - there's no use case for crypto - there's no underlying value to crypto - crypto can't replace a fiat currency
> This isn't a technology that protects the developing world against monied interests. Its a technology that amplifies inequality due to an enormous difference in cost depending on when you joined the network.
As the Big Lebowski said "that's just like, your opinion man".
Joking aside, there are good reasons to think that crypto could in fact allow many people who are currently stuck outside the financial system to have access. This may me a small use case right now but its still early days for the technology.
I'd encourage you to watch: A. M Antonopoulos 'What Bitcoin Means For Unbanked Economies https://youtu.be/xeSfDbbcN2c
How is this propaganda? You're saying people in countries with hyperinflated currency have no use for crypto and don't use it? Can you back this up? Can you explain why there are significant premiums for Bitcoin when buying from exchanges from these countries? Or is this propaganda too?
Of course there isn't data (except of course from the exchange rates). These people are breaking the law and at risk of death or imprisonment. What type of evidence would satisfy you?
So if you're saying its a commodity (and therefore should be taxed), it has value (and has to be based on something).
But semantics aside, taxation is theft, even more so in this case - there's no justifiable reason to hand over a portion of the gains to a government that had no involvement in the creation of the source of revenue.
I agree - but backed with concerns based on legitimate understanding not "price is going up quickly, must be a scam".
> I think governments/regulators should have some say the same way you'd want them to regulate any financial instrument and punish Ponzi schemers and pump-and-dumpers.
Because they did such a great job in 2008? When are they planning to punish the architects of the financial crisis? Who's going after the banks when they launder money for mexican cartels and ISIS? You really think these people are trying to protect the public?
> I'd like to think about the motives of both sides from being so passionate.
I can't speak for anyone else but I come to these threads hoping to find sensible insight and technical analysis not "THIS IS A BUBBLE! BAN IT!"
> For yaysayers, it's a bit more obvious---once the hype dies, they'll stop making money.
There may well be a huge correction but the overall market is anti-fragile and here to stay.
An article that sums up my thoughts: https://www.callmegwei.com/2017/11/24/crypto-price-isnt-an-e...
If you think Bitcoin is overvalued, fine. Pour yourself a stiff drink and accept some people might lose some money.
The sort of emotional hyperbole on here about "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the loving, paternal, incorruptible government to save the world from ourselves" is not just getting old, its absurd.
Having a censorship-resistant, globally-accepted asset would grant an unparalleled financial opportunity. Even if Bitcoin falls short in practice – it’s closer to the mark than any non-crypto asset.
Being able to send money around the world with real-time market-based fees that are often lower than many alternatives is useful. Having a place to park value when banking is not available is also useful. The list goes on…
Do you trust the government and the financial institutions that much that you're willing to hand them back the reigns of your financial future?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/venezuelans-bitco...
edit: Rather than downvote - could you please explain why you think crypto is not beneficial to the billions of people worldwide currently excluded from the financial system?
Please also provide evidence that "all of the early buyers are selling".
That being said Leron's work is phenomenal and I'd recommend "who owns the future" to everyone.
Its extremely hard to definitively define best practises. You'd be surprised how many practitioners still argue for what look like clearly outdated ways of doing things. There's also the argument that in some people's hands an outdated way of doing things is safer than a newer (better?) way of doing things in their hands. eg. A surgeon who has been practising for 30 years but only recently learned to use a laparoscope.
I doubt ambulance chasers do anything other than muddy the waters and enrich themselves at the healthcare systems expense.
Accumulation of power inevitably leads to abuses of said power, at least in my experience.
I will tell you that yoga/pilates/other non-ballistic, moderate resistance exercise that targets stabiliser muscles helps many people.
I would avoid surgery at all costs unless you have cord compression, a focal lesion or a fracture.
I'd be very wary of chiropractors - I've seen several patients with vertebral artery dissections (with incapacitating brain stem strokes!) because of neck manipulation. Of course, I have a selection bias but even a small risk for this seams like too much.
As far as I know no-one has come up with a metric that's actually useful for students and teachers.
And before you judge anyone too harshly, talk to me again when you have 300k of debt and you're a fourth year resident stuck in a singularly focused career pathway.
Also, the reality is most people have so much else going on to concern themselves with that these things are given little thought.
I'm still not sure I understand what you mean. Could you give an example?
> When cure confirmed by patient, diagnosis is proven correct, data is captured, reputation increased among participants in consensus that were correct.
It's not that simple. Most patients are not either 'cured' or 'not cured'. There are multiple possible outcomes at each stage of diagnosis and management.
> You could even use this as human-in-the-loop machine learning model training for open models.
Doubtful. Current machine learning algorithms are painfully inept when given clinical data (outside of very limited use cases). I'd love to be proven wrong though.
> If you want to explore what it might take to build this, we've just launched an alpha of our data/ml network that can facilitate a dapp built on top of Synapse https://synapse.ai/ Happy to reach out and chat more.
Sure, email?
Old school surgeons will insist that they can reliably make the diagnosis without imaging (and that's probably where you get a 20% false positive from). Some institutions will push this notion too - either to reduce imaging expenditure or increase surgical turnover (sad but true).
I don't think the analogy fits. There's no single metric (like runner speed/time) to evaluate competence.
> This problem can be alleviated to a large degree by risk-adjusting the outcomes: For each patient, estimate the most likely outcome and compare the actual outcome to the estimate.
Agree.
> I don't see this as an insurmountable obstacle. For example, you could have an independent body randomly sample the reported outcomes to check that they are accurate, and apply some kind of penalty if they are not.
That would be a good solution. Part of the problem is finding a truely independent body. Medicine is over-run with various governance and regulatory bodies (several of which have been shown to be little more than rent collectors). And again, there's the problem of deference to eminence combined with small in-bred communities within each speciality or sub-specialty (who would likely be the only people with the training to evaluate their peers reliably).