nuerow

> This discourages thoughtful and frequent commits that express the intent of a change because all the commits are just smashed together anyway so why bother.

This is only the case if said squashing just bundles commits without context or consistent logic. If merges to a mainline branch consist of feature branches whose pull request was already approved after a couple of iterations then the end result is a cleaner commit with it's history thoroughly audited. In practice it's equivalent to a fast-forward merge of a single-commit feature branch that just happened to be nearly lined up with mainline.

> The people that make separate higher standards for crypto are ignorant about how the thing they respect works too.

Not really, it's actually the other way around. Whataboutism aside, crypto proponents somehow try to maintain a cognitive dissonance of how crypto is designed to be unregulated and out of government's reach and at the same time show a kneejerk reaction to any comment on how crypto is used to perform transactions not allowed by regulation controlled by governments such as securities fraud and money laundering.

> Well, now I’m concerned that European satellites could be counting my farts. Great…

You only have anything to worry about if you're gunning for at least the fifth largest ever recorded in your part of the country.

> Where did I "blame" race? And for what?

Please don't play dumb. You accused, and I quote, "it's disingenuous to dismiss historical facts about what white people have done in Africa on the basis that it hurts white people in Africa's feelings."

> People who are white have done horrible things in Africa.

Please don't play dumb. You know very well your racist comment was a blanked accusation targeted at entire ethnical groups.

If you are honestly interested in learning about the crimes against humanity committed within the scope of imperialist agendas, you'll learn very well that the root cause is very specific. If on the other hand you're just invested in mindlessly spewing racist comments then you should really take a look at what you are doing.

> (...) then that truck of stolen graphics cards becomes much harder to move.

That sounds like a convoluted and impractical solution looking for a problem. Mobile service companies and hardware vendors managed to implement services that support activation and bricking without getting any crypto-related buzzword in the way.

> Universe rewards creativity

What? That means nothing at all.

> But it would cost too much of added gas fees(...)

If your goal was honestly to just buy art, why would "gas fees" matter? They only matter in a scenario involving wash trades and high rates of transactions involving small deltas in price.

> I think a lot of it is to just support artists.

To me that assertion, albeit convenient to paint a rosy picture, doesn't make any sense. No one needs a convoluted technical scheme to support artists as donating cash is easy and effortless. Buying the rights to a work from an artist also does not require a convoluted technical scheme, and considering that NFTs haven't been used to enforce any right then that hypothesis is also highly dubious.

What NFTs offer is the ability to perform transactions, and ones which don't have any artist or provenance in consideration.

> So do you have an argument to make (...)

I already did. You made an unsubstantiated claim, and I pointed out your personal assertion was wrong and baseless, and provided a time history of gas prices as evidence, including the fact that not so long ago they were over 3 times higher than the current market price.

If you have a problem with the facts feel free to point out what exactly leads you to believe that justifies the discrepancy between your personal beliefs and the facts.

> The most plausible conspiracy theories I've heard is that the big sales ($1 million plus) are wash trades, ("sell" an object to a confederate for 500 ETH, then they transfer the money right back via another route) and some classic money laundering

I'm not sure if the link between NFTs and money laundering can be downplayed as conspiracy theory. Even yesterday Reuters published a newspiece on NFTs being auctioned by the likes of Sotheby's, and where crypto-rich buyers pay NFT auctions with crypto, where a cryptocurrency lawyer was quoted as pointing out money laundering via cryptocurrencies was a "known fact."

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/new-masters-how-auc...

Using NFT transactions to launder money isn't exactly a novel idea as the art world is dominated and driven by money laundering schemes. In fact, in Mexico the art market tanked 70% once the Mexican government passed legislation requiring more info from buyers, because it's believed Mexican cartel rings were behind these transactions.

https://www.artandobject.com/news/how-money-laundering-works...

> Now covid is less of a problem every day, and those things are coming back ... we have a huge demand shock.

I suspect that stimulus checks may have also played a role. Those who fall below the poverty line finally found themselves with a little disposable income to spend on basic everyday things, thus driving up demand. Stimulus check detractors prefer to spin this as inflation but you only get that with a generalized increase in demand for basic consumer goods and services.

My personal theory is that this effect is driven mainly by poor people finally getting a break. Those who were already well-off tend to either not change their consumer patterns with small changes in disposable income, or tend to spend it with one-off expenses such as luxury goods and services, or even dump it in risky investments like crypto as we've been seeing in the ongoing bull run.

> The above makes oil and gas more costly to extract and to ship, which raises the price.

I'm not sure if you're just expressing your personal concerns over what you believe can hypothetically happen, or whether you're grossly misinformed.

Meanwhile, even though gas prices are breaking records all over the world, in the US they are still below the prices from 2010, back in the days no one in the US was concerned about gas prices because they were 3 times higher a couple years back during Bush2's presidency.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm

> It's great for Portuguese Treasury, Real Estate investors and the Hospitality Industry. But terrible for everyone else living in Portugal.

Why do you believe that? I mean, is no one working in the hospitality or constructions industry, and is no one benefiting from public spending?

> Foreign buyers have driven the housing market well above the purchasing power of locals, who still have one of the lowest salaries in Europe specially when adjusted to cost of living.

If there is foreign investment in real estate increasing supply and in the process creating jobs and tax revenue, and if there is an increase in demand for this specific market segment, isn't there a net benefit to society? And why do you assume that low-wage workers would be in the market for high-end housing in tourism centers if not for these foreign investors?

> For perspective, Portuguese minimum wage is 600 euros with a mode at around 1k per month (pre-tax).

A quick Google search points out that Portugal offers golden visas to real estate investors who spend more than €500k on a home[1]. That's hardly the same market segment being serving the demand of most citizens of western Europe. Why is this being spun as a "they're taking our jobs"-kind of propaganda?

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/36e18c72-512b-4c87-a41f-8ba2a9157...

> (...) nationals get one of the highest tax rates in Europe[0] and foreigners get a tax haven!

Why is this bad? If foreigners don't move to Portugal then they contribute zero in taxes and to the economy. If the Portuguese government convinces people to move to Portugal with tax benefits, they will pay taxes and spend their income in the local economy.

> Else those remote works are just going to increase even more housing costs (both rent/real estate)

I'm not sure that's true. Remote work does not require workers to be at commute distance from anywhere, and it only requires them to have a reliable internet connection. Everyone I know who switched to remote work moved out of city centers and into places where both rent was lower and quality of life was higher.

What exactly leads you to believe that fleeing tech hubs and urban centers leads to higher rents?

> That your mind equates speaking freely to poking a bear says a lot.

Yes, it does speak volumes on the problem the US is facing with its authoritarian, anti-intellectual, proto-fascist political movements. The science community should be free from persecution just because extremists have a hard time dealing with inconvenient info.

> What makes you feel safe?

Personally I feel safe when I don't have terrorists threatening me and my family with violence and murder just because I pointed the fact that vaccines work. It seems academia shares this opinion with me.

> From your reasons, opening in school is extremely unsafe since kids cannot be vaccinated.

Taken from:

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/que....

"Most children do not develop symptoms when infected with the virus, or they develop a very mild form of the disease. However, research has shown that children can become infected, and can spread the virus to other children and adults while they are infectious."

>.Majority of people agree with school opening. Therefore, covid is seen as not a big deal.

COVID-19 is not the big deal it was a few months ago because back then vaccine rollout barely started. Right now, those who still haven't got the jab either can't take it yet or are outright refusing to take it.

Meanwhile, children can't be vaccinated but enjoy a low risk of developing serious illness.

Given the scenario, it was necessary to evaluate the risk of deciding whether to impose a lockdown onto the school population, which would be largely incoherent and disproportionate to the risk, or returning to school while enforcing basic and low-effort health and safety measures, such as wearing masks and respect social distancing. Most of the world, if not all, chose to resume the school year with students returning to school.

> Vaccine prevents covid (e.g. death and major injury). Somehow vaccinated people are scared of unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-unmasked people. Huh?

You need to get your story straight. Things are quite simple as easy to understand once you take an honest look at the issue. For instance:

* The current generation of COVID-19 vaccines trains the immune system to have a fighting chance against COVID-19 and are effective at practically eliminating the risk of serious illness, but they do not prevent infection or spread.

* Some people cannot take the vaccine, such as the case of pregnant women until recently. Others do continue to be at risk even after taking the vaccine such as those plagued with comorbidities. See Colin Powell.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/colin-powell-suffered-from-a...

* The risk of spawning a new strain that is not handled by the vaccine is proportional to the number of infections, thus contributing to it's spread endangers us all. See how the Delta variant was spawned in India.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rising-covid-19-breakthrough-ca...

This is widely known by anyone who honestly cares about the subject and did a cursory search on the topic. In my case, the local vaccination drive distributed a leaflet explaining everything. Is any of this info new to you?

> It doesn't matter what the truth is at this point because the majority of scientist have demonstrated they are massive cowards (...)

Before you go on attacking others for being cowards, what would you do if you started receiving death threats because you chose to speak publiy about an issue which an extremist political movement frowns upon?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02757-3

> That is an absurd decision.

Your decision is absurd because that was exactly why you chose to set your strawman like that.

If you take a step back and force yourself to take a honest and reasonable look at what the OP really said, you'll quickly understand that all caring parents, even when considering that the average children's risk of serious illness is relatively low, do have a high risk aversion regarding their well-being. Therefore, they breathe easier if their kids' immune system is well trained and prepared to handle an infection, which is precisely what you get when you're vaccinated.

> * Ah yes, the classic position of all authoritarians: "My Way or the Highway!"*

Isn't that the core tenet of anti-vax militants? That not only are they entitled to refuse to follow the most basic health and safety precautions but also that they, somehow, are entitled to put at risk everyone around them because they feel like it?

And their sense of entitlement runs so deep that anyone around them not playing along with their sense of entitlement warrants personal attacks such as the one you've just mounted?

Pray tell, if you honestly placed any value on personal freedom how come you place a higher value on your personal whims than the health and safety of everyone around you?

> I'm not making wrong claims, because I'm not saying all governments did the same thing. In my country the messaging was definitely as I said. The argument was that masks wouldn't work for laypeople because they needed specialized training to be worn right (another clear lie, my wife is a doctor, has always used masks and never got such training beyond a few simple instructions that can be given in 30 seconds.

Again, I feel you should really revisit the events and review your claim. Even if we accept it at face value, it only makes any sense to raise concerns over "hey didn't work or were counterproductive for laypeople" if they were advising against mass adoption, and advising people to not go out of their way to buy surgical masks and latex gloves only makes sense if the goal is to mitigate spikes in demand to ensure the medical community still has access to them.

Let's put it this way: did you saw any government at all advising against buying toilet paper?

> Added source links to my post from links I pulled from Google Scholar.

Sorry, you dumped a bunch of links but none of them seem to be related to any of your claims.

Can you explain the relationship between any of your links and the points you tried to make? Because dumping a bunch of unrelated links not only does not work as a reference but also feels like something done in bad faith[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

> it's being used in medical apartheid

Can you please offer a description of exactly what you feel warrants an association with racial discrimination and persecution?

> My country's government, like many others (including the US, I think?), blatantly lied about masks at the beginning, saying that they didn't work or were counterproductive for laypeople (...)

You should really revisit those claims because it's quite likely you got them all completely wrong.

I'm also living in a country where its government argued against mass adoption of surgical masks and gloves, but the argument was no way close to your claim.

The rationale was that this mass increase in demand for surgical masks and gloves would deplete the current stockpile and production capacity, thus leaving healthcare professionals and other frontline workers without access to basic protective equipment.

We're talking about a spike in demand that directly lead to the death of healthcare and frontline workers[1].

Consequently, we've saw multiple governments and health officials stating that the public should not go on a shopping binge for protective equipment to lower the pressure from the supply-side.

The same problem was also observed in a run for respirators.

In all these cases, once the production capacity was ramped up, governments naturally started providing incentives and even mandating their use.

[1] https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/comment/healthcare-wor...

> A wish to survive future infections? Natural immunity is more effective than vaccine immunity.

No, that's not true at all. You got it exactly backwards.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...

I wonder why you cherry-pick obscure sources from other countries while your own CDC quite clearly refutes your claims.

Moreover, you do not need to pick between either getting infected or taking the vaccine, so your whole argument makes no sense from the start.

> Realistically the risk is that everything surrounding the vaccine is and was extremely suspicious. I've never had a vaccine before where the nurse urged me to keep moving my arm for the remainder of the day.

This is the very first time I ever saw anyone make this extraordinary claim, or anything close to it. Practically everyone I know is fully vaccinated and there was absolutely no reference to any thing remotely like that. Ever. At all.

Personally, the only out of the ordinary thing I experienced was getting a leaflet with a FAQ on the vaccines. Other than this, I sat down, took the jab, got up, went to the waiting room for a bit, and afterwards went on with my daily life. Boring as hell, and happened on both jabs.

I'm really skeptical regarding your claim, to the point I doubt it ever happened. Do you happen to have any way, other than your word, to back it up?

> Realistically the clotting of the vaccines was a real issue due to the poor testing, and I'm not sure if it's still a problem because I haven't heard about it being talked about for a while.

There is nothing realistic about your claim. Entire countries have taken the vaccine and, even though there are rare cases where patients react poorly to the vaccine, the scenario you've depicted is not factual or grounded on reality.

Do you actually have anything that supports your extraordinary claim, or is this something you believe in in spite of evidence?

> The vaccine isn't 100% effective in stopping transmission? Or stopping you catching the disease? Or dying? Each of these becomes some pseudo-gotcha moment that leads some down an invermectin-taking path with Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan as the pied piper.

What saddens me the most is that when I got my first jab (european country) I was given a leaflet clearly stating that a) the vaccine works by giving your immune system a workout to get it better prepared to fight the infection, b) the vaccine is not a silver bullet in stopping you from contracting and spreading the disease, c) even with the vaccine we need to continue respecting basic health and safety precautions like wearing masks and social distancing.

The message was clear: the vaccine significantly mitigated the impact of the pandemic, such as the need for lockouts, but the problem doesn't go away.

Consequently, where I am we're seeing vaccination rates close to 80% and pretty much everything went to normal. The infection rates are increasing slightly right now, but it's a far cry from the shitshow that we've endured around the spring of 2020.

This is really concerning be because it seems the world already forgot that this first batch of vaccines were nothing more than an emergency stopgap solution to buy the world some time until it figures out how to put a stop to it. Even though we're no longer seeing emergency response teams piling up dead bodies in makeshift tents, the root problem is still there, completely unaddressed.

If we omit the 2020 US presidential elections, and all the propaganda that was pushed to gaslight the people and downplay the danger posed by the epidemic, and afterwards the desperate attempt to shift the blame away from the way that ball was fumbled and onto a scapegoat, any debate over the origin of covid-19 is clearly a waste of time.