Sounds like great idea, but can’t seem to find some key info: which “public ledger” is used here? A blockchain? If so, there would need to be a massive fee overhead. If not, then how are we not relying on trust?
Also, is there some kind of ownership structure based on investment?
That’s exactly it. I view it almost like Newtonian physics. Sure, it’s inaccurate at some level, but until we find a superior model, it’s safer to make your investment decisions based on it.
Same here, with the caveat that Google has managed to successfully bully me into paying for Premium some time ago. Not sure if any Premium users are affected.
Are you disagreeing with the “chilling effect” section of the article, or are you implying the effect could not have been real due to the current length of the article?
If a major government agency repeatedly requests you follow certain guidelines and gets frustrated when you don’t, it might be reasonable to feel pressured or threatened, even if they’re your own guidelines. I know I’d be, even by what was revealed in the Twitter files.
I assume he’s familiar with the transparency standards of his own site. And he still calls whatever happened pressure. So it’s entirely possible it wasn’t as innocuous as you suggest.
Did Zuckerberg himself support conspiracy theories? Or does he regret succumbing to government requests for censoring that type of content? Sounds to me like he wants to allow certain kinds of speech on his platform, regardless of whether or not he personally agrees with them.
Can’t find the claim about the statement not being political anywhere in the linked article. But there’s this:
> Meta’s CEO aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms
Sounds like he wasn’t the initiator of the discussion, but I may be misreading the paragraph.
I wonder if companies are now more likely to keep those postings open despite not actually hiring. I’m personally (and of course anecdotally) aware of a number of such cases.
The article is from 2019, so its claims about Ethereum are outdated. But even so:
> We start by collecting data on emission rates… for four pollutants commonly created by burning fossil fuels to produce energy
Wait, why focus on fossil fuels alone?
And why focus on cryptocurrency specifically? Did they produce a similar study for e.g. entertainment?
Also, did I miss the part where the impact of traditional mining is estimated and compared? I can’t find anything about the headline’s claim in the body of the article.
Is there any indication in the quoted statement that the retaliations were initiated or supported by the company management? If not, the headline remains inaccurate.
I obviously have no insight into whether or not the company engaged in whistleblower retaliation or intimidation practices. But that is a different argument from whether or not the headline accurately interpreted the statement.
So, according to the actual statement, the perpetrators were employees who were subsequently disciplined or fired. There’s no indication that the practice was company policy, encouraged, or even tolerated by the management. The headline is clickbait.
To my knowledge, organizations like the WHO and countries like Brazil reported weaker effectiveness of the Chinese jabs compared to the likes of Pfizer. I’m not familiar with even China claiming otherwise these past few years. Are you saying the CCP fell for the anti-CCP propaganda?
Also, is there some kind of ownership structure based on investment?