tchaffee

What I asked is specific: if you know the money is for a hit job will you still accept the business and take your fee or is there a moral line you personally won't cross? Yes, it's the job of the police to investigate but do you want the freedom to not engage in business that you consider evil?

Where did I say instead? You should do both.

Not if you spend it instead of investing it.

Depends on the case. If you already know who belongs to a terrorist organization then maybe stopping the money and limiting the ability to terrorize would be a higher priority.

So you would willingly, knowingly, and personally process a transaction to kill someone? Not your problem, let the police discover it?

And if it's for human trafficking? Payment processors are made up of people, and people have to have the freedom of drawing a moral line they won't cross. The real problem as I see it is that payment processing is a near monopoly. Better competition and smaller players would almost guarantee that every transaction except the most egregious would have a willing payment processor. Diversity is so often the best answer over a one size fits all rule.

Not universal even in the US, but you encounter them fairly frequently in Europe depending on the country.

That's a fair point. Nothing like 10,000 hours is required for most people to attract and keep someone who fits their criteria.

But the point was that if you're blaming other people or something like hypergamy instead of improving yourself then you're just looking for excuses.

That's why they use the full body scanner at most airport security now. One of those detected a small piece of scrap paper in my back pocket that I had to pull out and show to security. They showed me the image and even the shape of the paper was clear. For sure those scanners can distinguish between metal in your arm and taped to your arm.

Is she fun? Is she honest? Does she have the same values as me? Is her family very healthy and long lived? There are so many important factors you're leaving out. Not to mention that beautiful people often quickly rise to higher paid positions. Even if not so clever.

None of the men blaming hypergamy on their failure at attracting a rich and beautiful woman have put in the actual time. They say it takes about 10,000 hours to get good at something.

The numbers would seem to not support that everyone can marry above average. But what's above average to one person is below average to another so there's far more room for everyone marrying a person who fits their desires than a naive analysis would show.

Attracting other people is a skill. Growing and maintaining a healthy relationship is a skill. Put in the 10,000 hours if attracting specific qualities in a partner is a high priority.

And the data shows that both sexes engage in hypergamy. Men marry up in education. Men marry up in beauty. Women marry up in income but not by a lot.

How does that work? You steal a bike and ride both home? Wouldn't a van or being on foot be the better approach to stealing bikes?

Lots of folks on your street are getting around town with zero emissions and you're moaning about that while talking about the troubles of fixing your polluting vehicle? Have you ever paused to think how inconsiderate it is to pollute the air people have to breath? I'll take smug white people in silly clothing over polluters any day.

Why would a plate in your body set off a warning light? It's not a security risk.

This is factually wrong. Being stuck in a long security line for a flight in Europe or S. America is not unusual.

That's a gross exaggeration of what was claimed. The idea was that if a law is good but it prevents some companies from legally operating, that's ok. For example, if a company can't profit without using child labor then it's ok for that company to go out of business. Lots of folks feel the same about privacy. If you can't protect my data, then it's fine if you go out of business.

Facebook loses no control by not operating in countries where they can't obey the laws. You keep focusing on individual choice but conveniently never include Facebook as a party perfectly capable of making choices too.

People elected the government. The people made the choice. GDPR and other privacy protections are also widely supported by most people in Europe. It's so popular with the average person that vver 17 countries have already adopted laws based on GDPR. And it's common sense: most people like privacy and don't like someone invading their privacy.

That's not at all how it works. You're arguing against points where your understanding of the related technology is poor.

No one gave up their agency. The laws are a reflection of choices people freely made of their own will about how they want their data protected.

The owner of Facebook and as an adult have the right to not do business in countries where you can't reasonably obey the laws.

That's not what the EU said. You can read the publicly available ruling. Or any of the hundreds of articles summarizing the ruling.

If you think it's technically impossible the burden of proof is on you.

Facebook has not claimed it's not technically possible.

Yes, they would.

Not my problem how you implement it. That's Facebook's problem. My rate is $600 an hour and I'll guarantee I can come up with a GDPR compliant solution within a year or you don't have to pay. That's far less expensive than the fines, isn't it?

That's entirely untrue. Countries in the EU had strong privacy laws before the EU existed. And before the internet existed. Mostly around phone companies, but not only. Having lived in a few countries in the EU I can also anecdotely say that privacy laws are generally liked.

GDPR laws are so popular that 17 countries outside the EU already have similar laws.

Facebook operates in the EU and the majority of EU citizens prefer their privacy. Facebook must obey the laws of the land if they want to operate there.

Just as Facebook must obey Apple's rules if they want to be in the app store.

Similar privacy laws applied to some EU phone companies long before Facebook existed.

These laws are good and should stay. If better privacy has side effects, that's fine. Do business elsewhere if you don't like the legal preferences of the locals.

Worse user experience depends on your priorities. Some people and companies think privacy is an essential UX factor. Apple, the most successful company in the world from time to time, agrees.

Not only that. Name a big business or big NGO that runs well and has zero leadership.

Sure. Or any country that complies with EU data protection and privacy laws.