srveale

I'll expand on another commenter's analogy. Imagine if it was possible to easily duplicate, atom-for-atom, the Mona Lisa. How much would a copy go for? Maybe $50 with a nice frame? Nothing close to the mega millions for the real thing.

This means that the value of the painting is not the painting itself. It's valuable because of who created it and the history surrounding it.

It's possible that bad actors will try and sell a forgery, with paintings as well as for NFTs. That doesn't mean all paintings are worthless. It just means that buyers have to be careful.

There are plenty of valid criticisms of NFTs (and to be honest I'll probably never buy one) but this is not one of them.

Imagine a dog owner saying "Strongly agree" to something like "Dog has a tendency to attack (or attempt to attack) other dogs", or "Dog behaves aggressively towards children." (I believe these were questions in the surveys given to the dog owners).

> No no, not my precious Bulldozer, he's a sweety, just gets excited sometimes. I'll only put "neither agree nor disagree", because he only tries to attack dogs who are smaller than him.

I mean, I get it, nobody wants to think ill of their beloved pet, but that's the point. A study like this needs objective measures.

Ironic how sometimes people embedded in tech can be the biggest luddites.

What if the USA had taken half its military budget over the last 20 or 30 years, a huge amount, and used that money to do good works around the world? Wouldn't that make it much harder for any state or non-state actor to organize an attack? (E.g. "You want us to hate America? But they just built the school my child attends... Maybe I'll support the guy who wants to open trade talks instead")

But they've taken that money and waged war against people who you can hardly blame for feeling like maybe the West isn't so great. The harder you fight against "Terror" the stronger it gets.

Of course I've vastly oversimplified it, but it just seems like a tragically wasted opportunity.

Is it stateful? I'm assuming so, because of this exchange:

Me: "Should I make a pie?" Ouija: "Always" Me: "What kind" Ouija: "Cherry"

I didn't say that. I said you compared them. You did so again in this comment, again putting them on the same level as taboo discussion subjects for children, which is just plain wrong. The fact that people of the same gender can love each other is not hard to understand, it's really quite simple to explain, but your last comment attempted to make it sound difficult to explain, seemingly to justify speaking in hushed tones about it or not at all if children are nearby, as if you were talking about their deceased parent. But it's an easy-to-understand, neutral subject, so your point is invalid.

And really? One kid tells another kid that his dad is an architect, the second kid asks the teacher to explain what the first kid's dad does. And the teacher says "No, I can't talk about anyone's parents." That's what you're going with?

This isn't necessarily about a student's parents anyway. That's just one example of where a child might be triggered to ask about it. Kids are curious, they will ask, and with this new legislation teachers will avoid it as if the kid asked about death. And when something gets treated as if it's taboo, it becomes taboo.

If someone is okay with being out (like a married-with-children couple) then it's okay to acknowledge they are gay. Just like saying Timmy's dad is a doctor is okay. A teacher shouldn't risk legal action for saying so.

2. You want to ban gossip?

Both of those are nonsense. And neither address my point. The bill is vague on purpose, and the purpose is to scare teachers into silence.

A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay." This bill introduces that risk because the teacher doesn't know who is going to decide what is age appropriate. A parent could decide it was inappropriate and initiate a suit. Will that happen often? No, but what teacher is going to risk it?

It's very difficult to find a reason that the wording "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" is so vague, expect that the bill's intent is to silence the subject as much as possible.

Implying that everyone who runs a company is mature and makes responsible decisions, which is not true.

Well, according to an earlier post today: knowing the word "parsec."

Religion gives you a set of rules, and usually involves some horrible cosmic punishment if you break those rules. But those rules are easy to derive without the need to invoke the supernatural. E.g.

- "What goes around comes around."

- Lying tends to produce more lying, leading to consequences for the liar

- Turning the other cheek gives you peace and endears you to others

- Charity is its own reward

- The 7 deadly sins are all eventually toxic to the individual committing them

- etc.

These would all be true even if religion never sprouted up in our world. Religion coopts basic, secular morality and claims it as its own divine truth. It's done this so effectively that people like you become confused about how non-religious people learn to be good people, and some go as far as to equate spirituality with morality.

My question to you (I'm assuming you're Christian) would be, how do you know that you shouldn't kill someone who works on Sunday? The bible explicitly says that you should (Exodus 35:2). If you know that your morality doesn't line up perfectly with the bible, then how did you arrive at it? There are prominent Christian figures you agree with, and plenty that you do disagree with. How do you decide which is which?

The right to a platform has never been guaranteed. The only difference is that with social media, your message is broadcast first and moderated after.

You're telling me this whole entire article is fake?

> What is the standard? https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

That Russia helped Trump is generally agreed upon. Was it the only factor in his win? Of course not.

But your whataboutism here doesn't hold water. Sure, there are subreddits that commonly exaggerated the truth about the Russia thing. Should they should get banned, since r/donaldtrump got banned for supporting violence? The two issues are so very different. I do not see hypocrisy in this case.

When you're advertising uptime/availability, you're motivated not to report downtime/unavailability. Then the value of such reports is lost; developers start banging their heads trying to figure out if it's a service outage or a bug in their software (yes, informed by personal experience).

I've offered up a modified proposal, with links showing actual experts and politicians debating merits and drawbacks, including budgetary analysis. Because there isn't enough money for a naive UBI, we have to make compromises including increasing complexity and risk of fraud, but the general principle remains the same and the benefits are still there. And we already have fraud and complexity - these would be greatly reduced under the proposal, just not completely eliminated.

Based on comments like "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point," I can see that you haven't fully understood the structure of the proposal. There's no way that getting a job would net you less income.

I'm not invalidating anything. Please don't get caught up in semantics.

In most versions of the plan I've seen, the cost is not as simple as (population over 18) * (monthly amount). If you're looking for a breakdown of the math, check this out:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachme...

Your post doesn't mention:

- Savings from scrapping other welfare programs

- Decreased healthcare and law enforcement costs and other economic benefits of bringing millions of people out of poverty

- Massive stimulus leading to increased government revenue

I'm not saying it would be cheap, but your post only includes the costs and not the benefits.

[0] https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-a-guarant...