No, I'm not pretending that the FDA is nothing but good, that is a straw man. What I said was correct as I said it, you didn't need to invent a point that I did not make.
Your arguments come from a hypercapitalist fantasy that systemically fails to protect vulnerable populations. Letting market forces satisfy the need of alleviating human suffering is terribly naive nonsense. When the corporations get around to policing themselves, if they do at all, the human toll will be far greater than if we as a society continue to vote for representatives who will reign them in.
You see and comprehend flaws in the current system, but you for some reason cannot see or comprehend that the dumb things you are writing here are much worse.
Bringing up paternalism in this conversation is especially puerile nonsense.
Rather than an agency that is accountable to publicly elected officials, in your mind profit driven entertainment businesses would perform this role more reliably?
Self-responsibility is just a phrase. When elaborated into the idea you have suggested it crumbles. By the time the market corrects industrial causes of human suffering, far too much preventable suffering will have occurred.
Unless you are philosophically indifferent to human suffering your ideas about self-responsibility are empty nonsense. You have no grounds to criticize others for childish sentiments.
I share your opinion on the likely veracity of the allegations and would also like an explanation for the flagging of this post and the repeated deletions of similar posts.
Not sure if you are speaking out of knowledge of this particular individual but with respect to other cultures, a biological male presenting as female does not necessarily mean trans the way western cultures think of it.
Japanese Okama culture, for instance, is an entirely different animal. I don't know this specific person just thought I'd share that misgendering isn't as black and white as even a lot of trans people think it is.
> It also seems pretty arrogant to assert you know better than everyone else.
I did not assert that. I made a correction, which was in fact correct.
The meaning does exist, and commonly, even if in regions you are unfamiliar with. I did not misuse the word common. I think you just emotionally reacted to being called arrogant, when in fact it was a merited criticism.
> So it goes both ways - just because something is the case in your region doesn’t mean it’s true across the board.
I never said nor suggested that it did. I was criticizing the people saying it is not a common usage because they hadn't heard it. You and the other user trying to correct me by repeating how you are from a place where the meaning is different both completely missed the point.
The meaning exists, and is used derogatorily, and definitely commonly in some places. None of what you wrote has any bearing on that.
No, the person you replied to was correct (for my region and presumably his). My knowledge of the term mirrors his and I'm kind of disappointed to see so many people asserting there is no common, derogatory, gendered use of the term just because they are unfamiliar with it.
I see a lot of people with no knowledge or experience with this common usage. That's fine, but it's arrogant to assume things you don't know are nonsense.
> If you know anyone into crypto you would know they talk about it non stop.
Not really. There are a lot of people holding, mining, DCA'ing into projects they believe in who have no trouble at all keeping it to themselves.
Your remarks about gambling are similarly projecting a portion of the community onto the rest. Those traders who treat it as a speculative asset are gambling as you say, and tend to be obsessive in the way you describe, but you seem not to be aware of everyone who deals with crypto differently than you did.
There are a lot of crypto projects that people don't expect to moon, that effectively serve their purpose right now, and will just get better at it in the future. None of what you wrote is nearly as generally true as you made it out to be.
I would not want to be a friend to the sort of idiots who would say stuff like this. Having a target painted on my back as a decoy somehow makes it even worse.
The problem lies with all of the little ways a dysfunctional democracy fails to take care of it's people. I don't think it makes any sense to suggest dissatisfaction causes these policies.
Politics is the culprit only in the sense that many otherwise straightforwardly practical issues have become politicized to the point that objectively poorer and often dangerously irresponsible choices are preferable to any choice that is associated with one's political opponents.
Looking at it this way, it is clearly the political situation that is causing dissatisfaction.
Many industries do a lot of harm to the environment for profits. On the spectrum of those, where do cryptos fall?
I don't know and personally hold only a little bit, nothing I would be very pained to lose, but it would certainly cause a lot of economic harm to a lot of people to do what you propose. The idea cannot be taken seriously without first answering my question.
This was my attitude as well for much of my career, and it was a mistake. The "correct" decision depends on the state of the business and your resources at the time. And nothing else.
After liking this article, I wanted to check out others on the site, and am shocked at the terrible usability of their front page. I can't finish reading the titles of their articles before the page just keeps moving things around on me. It is so frustrating, which is unfortunate because I would otherwise have been interested to see more of their content. Experience completely ruined by awful design judgment.
Rather than throw the whole thing out because the premise was once applied poorly, the legislation could restrict the actions taken with said logs. PII and the selling and collating of said information from multiple sources stand out to me.
"This website requests permission to connect your information collected from web page views with your user account"
"This website requests permission to sell information gleaned from your web page views to third parties."
Implemented at the browser level, with the ability to set preferences like with location and do-not-track cookies, doesn't seem so far-fetched.
With log analysis for security purposes being generally permitted. Presumably popular servers would quickly default to a level of logging that complies with a more reasonable middle ground than "log and analyze absolutely everything you can think of."
Imperfect, but sounds like a good place to start to me. Frankly, people like you who want to just minimize the concern and pretend privacy is a fringe interest are exactly the problem with our industry. I think most people a) don't have any clue what's going on and/or b) assume, perhaps rightly, that the battle is long since lost. But it doesn't need to be.
Your arguments come from a hypercapitalist fantasy that systemically fails to protect vulnerable populations. Letting market forces satisfy the need of alleviating human suffering is terribly naive nonsense. When the corporations get around to policing themselves, if they do at all, the human toll will be far greater than if we as a society continue to vote for representatives who will reign them in.
You see and comprehend flaws in the current system, but you for some reason cannot see or comprehend that the dumb things you are writing here are much worse.
Bringing up paternalism in this conversation is especially puerile nonsense.