That doesn't negate the damage though. Requiring a grey or black market to use the currency in a nation of economic significance restricts bitcoin's utility. This will be a value hit when competing against any potential currency that can overcome those hurdles.
Practice is important and when coupled with introspection/self-reflection can help a lot in identifying areas where easy improvement can be developed. However, of equal importance is targeted study. If you want to tell better jokes, study successful comedians and their jokes. If you want to write, read stories by successful writers. Meanwhile, as you do these things always try to understand why the audiences for these things liked them so much.
I don't think they're ignoring the issue, I think you're pushing an issue that they've already explained in parts of their statement that you chose not to quote.
>
st3fan: Because that library is there does not mean that we are giving data to Google. It does not even mean that it is active or that it is sending anything.
Having gone through the comment chain in other places it seems like your entire position in the debate between you and st3fan is based on ignoring what he's actually saying in general. In response to their request for evidence your responded
>That's pretty simple. Don't use proprietary software.
which sidesteps the query entirely and does nothing to lend credibility to your original position.
I don't expect to change your mind and frankly I don't have a reason to, but if your goal is to have productive or persuasive conversations then you may want to evaluate your current communication strategy.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your metaphor in this case. I appreciate that it had something to do with efficiency but then I got lost because a 20:1 farmer-to-other feeding ratio seems incredibly unrealistic and made it hard to understand whether the ratio was relevant to the metaphor's point or was just an off the cuff sort of detail.
It isn't a metaphor. Without modern farming technology and techniques, the world cannot support 7 billion people. We deal with that fact or we die in droves. Those are our options.
I think computing limitations is the big one but also software limitations in terms of how much software a company might need to develop for itself to compete with a big player. Right now there's a lot of innovation going on. Not that there won't always be innovation, but in the grand scheme of time I'd argue web-tech will one day reach a state of the art that progresses more incrementally in the way that fields like physics, biology, etc. tend to with of waves of small insights rather than the few decades of rapid evolution they underwent in their infancy.
It's at that point of incremental innovation for web-tech where I think little guys become competitive because that's where they can start smaller businesses running cheap but 'good enough' hardware and premade open-source software to provide similar services to the big players albeit at smaller margins to provide comparable but less comprehensive products for cheaper. These smaller businesses are where I imagine the decentralization manifesting. Especially if some of those businesses are things like "Join our regional hardware co-op and contribute your unused processing power to our service in exchange for a share of the profit". That would be huge on its own for de-centralization, if a profitable service could bring anybody and everybody a worthwhile amount of money for simply running their web-service software during downtime.
This doesn't sounds like an issue of too much money though, it sounds like a combination of baseline compensation not yielding a high enough return, inadequate oversight agencies to catch this sort of behavior, and the consequences of being caught not being strict enough. It could even be argued that just paying more would discourage the corrupt behavior in your hypothetical examples because the doctors are taking those actions to simply make more money.
I'm just saying because of the lack of systemic solutions (or cures to fit the subject of the thread) you're describing, conscientious doctors are penalized to some extent and that's not cool.
Addendum: More oversight and regulation over all the doctors would be much more complex than just concentrating on the two enormous industries muddling the situation in the first place. Doctors' jobs have already become incredibly bureaucratized over the years and introducing more complex rules to simply address the symptoms rather than the root cause seems wasteful.
Agreed. There will always be doctors who 'bend' the rules or just don't care. Not to mention those who literally have no idea of the kind of damage they can be introducing in someone's life by prescribing certain drug. Until someone stands up to Big Pharma, the massacre will never stop.
I agree with your addendum, I actually paused for about a minute while I was writing my reply to contemplate the right word to use for current oversight. Originally I was going to say insufficient/weak oversight but that seemed too much like it implied that the solution would simply be stronger/more oversight.
Except for the part where you completely ignored their point that you and anyone else with security concerns can conduct their own audit of the code and verify whether or not the telemetry functionality is performing in the manner described.
You have to understand how extremely strict Mozilla is with using third-party services for things like crash reporting and telemetry. It is extremely difficult to find services that meet our very high standard for privacy.
Wait... Focus doesn't use Google Analytics because they don't meet your very high standards for privacy. But it does use Adjust, which means Adjust does meet your very high standards, even though it uses Google Analytics?
This is a misunderstanding. Adjust does not use google analytics. You are connecting unrelated things. The existence of a library, which actually is not a google analytics library, does not mean at all this app talks to google servers.
AFAIK Focus and Adjust make no connections to google. Check the source?
But Adjust only comes into play when the app is installed by clicking on a Google ad campaign. So at that point, Google already knows you've clicked on the ad and installed the app (because that's how they bill Mozilla).
I don’t think Adjust is for Google ad campaigns actually. It is used for links we put in our emails or in Firefox desktop. Or for ads that we buy on Facebook. I don’t think there is any connection to google.
Definitely relevant but it seems like this would probably be argued as a case of probable cause. If the local police are aware that people have been picking mushrooms in the region because some of them contain psilocybin then it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider foraging for mushrooms probable cause in their jurisdiction.
I didn't go to law school either. I definitely don't want cops patting me down because someone does something illegal sometimes in an area that I also happen to be in sometimes.
I may have phrased that poorly, I didn't mean that you would be searchable for being in the area. I meant that you would be searchable for being witnessed picking or carrying mushrooms in the area which is very different from your example of simply walking through a high crime area.
Looking at your original comment I see that message clearly now. I still wouldn't want that to constitute PC. What if I had a brown bag full of non-psychedelic mushrooms? The cops would roll up on me and search me? Worse yet, what if I inadvertently picked a psychedelic mushroom, not knowing what is is and telling myself I would ID it with a spore print at home later. Now I'm looking at prison time? I don't want my taxes to go to keeping those cases in prison.
We've kind of gone off on a tangent from the original article which I am OK with. It will be a hard sell for me to agree to widening the definition of what constitutes PC. From my basic understanding being in a place or doing something is the definition of circumstantial evidence.
I also just realized that I am biased in this conversation because I believe that they should be legal. If you read the studies linked from https://clusterbusters.org/ the potential physiological medical benefits have been shrouded from study by the international agreements that were fabricated by agenda driven politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk
To summarize:
1. Old guy was poaching. Nice story and all but there was a sign.
2. No I do not want to expand the definition of what constitutes PC
3. I have bias in this conversation because I think mushrooms should not be categorized as an illegal drug.
I realize I'm risking downvotes with this one, but I think it's worth acknowledging. While Charlottesville was a tragedy, and the time is not right imo to discuss it with the public at large precisely because it was a tragedy and people are still mourning, the event was overall as peaceful as any severely political protest ever is. The deaths and injuries that occurred should not be simply discounted as if the people are simply disposable, but the majority of activists on both sides did not cause those deaths and injuries. Unless there is a major point of information that I am ignorant of, the driver who has catapulted the event into the national spotlight acted essentially in isolation even if his ideology was not held in isolation at the event. He acted heinously, and now is not the time for taking easy solace, but I think there's some merit in the reality that by and large people on both sides were able to demonstrate with the -relative- peacefulness of a generic controversial American protest with orbital counter protests.
Many groups radicalize "lone wolves" precisely to do the things that they want done, but want to keep their hands clean.
You saw this particularly during the 90s, when people were radicalized to attack and kill abortion doctors. It was rarely called terrorism, but the tactics were the same.
The folks who sent hoax anthrax packages to Planned Parenthood offices where mostly lone actors, picking up on their group's radicalizing messages.
One could also say Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were "lone wolves" in that they believed the radicalizing talk, but acted essentially alone.
If you're an avowed Hitler fan at a #UniteTheRight alt-right rally, and you drive multiple blocks at high speed into a crowd of people, and then drive multiple blocks in reverse at a similar rate of speed in order to evade capture, I think there's enough room to indict.
This is why I couldn't believe that terrorism was invoked. (for a second, before accepting the unscrupulous cleverness of it)
Terrorism is when a message is sent to the people at large, not what happens between warring protestors. Terrorism is what Theresa May wants to tap internet communications for.
Replying to matt, not sure why his post was flagged (aside from veering off my topic):
>People protesting against Nazis aren't... >That means...
You theorise a lot about the opposing side on this one occasion, that is contrary to what we've seen for a year from american political clashes.
>But anyway... The definition of terrorism is politically motivated violence. Not calling this terrorism, when it's using literally the same method as ISIS has been using in the last years, is starting to make it really hard to believe that all these free speech advocates aren't just trying to hide their sympathies for the skinheads they're defending.
Drunk drivers "use the same method" to kill people. What's really depressing is the fact that lights a bulb in people's head that says terrorism. It means they don't have actual definitions of words in their heads. I'm not a nazi sympathiser at all, thank you. And believe any of those at Charlottesville truly concerned with white heritage and statues failed themselves by association (nevermind carrying torches..).
to me the key difference is terrorism is premeditated. this violence was the act of one individual and is blown out of proportion.
what was not communicated is that only these "alt-right" groups had permission to march and demonstrate and the police were told to not intervene when counter groups who assembled in similar manner without permission were allowed free reign to incite the issue.
I am all for letting these "alt-right/left" groups march to their hearts content provided their faces are visible. it gives them an outlet and lets the rest of us know who they are. so while their message may be repugnant they have the right to march.
the ACLU recent preening/posturing/etc is shameful compared to their past actions. far too many groups are piling on declaring how they are against violence which is non declaration. Of course violence cannot be supported.
the real danger is if we force these groups underground that some of their members may act out with much more terrible violence.
> what was not communicated is that only these "alt-right" groups had permission to march and demonstrate and the police were told to not intervene when counter groups who assembled in similar manner without permission were allowed free reign to incite the issue.
It could be because both of those statements are lies. You might need to rethink which outlet you go to for news.
Although one of those outlets happens to be the POTUS, which is unfortunate.
> I am all for letting these "alt-right/left" groups march to their hearts content provided their faces are visible.
You do know what happens once neo-Nazis get photos of your face? People are getting harrassed online, then offline, rounded up, beaten and occasionally murdered. Masking is self-protection.
And yes there IS a difference between lefties and Nazis masking up: Lefties, generally, don't kill. Worst you get as a Nazi is a beating. Nazis do kill (50 or 68 alone due to terrorist attacks since 9/11, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#cite_ref-...).
Source: know a couple "outed" activists, got my face distributed by a local Nazi party leader on Youtube.
Are you seriously parroting Donald Trump right now? The lefties at Charlottesville were peaceful (and in those cases where it did turn violent, the Nazis began with assaulting). Most weren't even Antifa, they were ordinary Charlottesville citizens protesting against Nazis from all over the USA taking their city over!
According to that, either Muslim or left-wing (anti-white or anti-police) extremists were responsible for all the fatalities in 2016, save one attack for which the motive is unknown.
> According to that, either Muslim or left-wing (anti-white or anti-police) extremists were responsible for all the fatalities in 2016, save one attack for which the motive is unknown.
First off, you're taking liberties in assigning those to left-wing extremism without a basis.
Here's some more data, over a longer period:
Quoting ADL's Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2016 report [1] (focus on domestic terrorism):
Left-wing violence is on the rise. All of those 8 people killed by the left were in 2016 (Dallas and Baton Rouge attacks on police officers), none of the people killed by the right were (unless the ADL is mysteriously counting the killing of an Imam in NYC by a Hispanic man whose motive is unknown as "right-wing").
That's assuming the ADL's numbers are right and none of the other people the GTD called "anti-police extremists" were left-wing, which appears to be incorrect. [1]
The "rise of the violent left", as The Atlantic called it, is a depressing trend.
Anyway, I have to go and won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Have a great day.
> All of those 8 people killed by the left were in 2016,
8 police officers shot by radical BLM activists. I don't like that kind of action either, but given that PoC are routine walking target circles for police, I certainly get how the two activists were motivated - and there is a difference between taking revenge on murderers versus murdering people just because they're black/jewish/...
And: according to ADL (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-e...), however, Nazis did commit two triple-murders (bringing their tally for 2016 to 6), and it's the first year that Nazis were not the absolute dominator on the murder statistics since over 30 years (9/11 was not domestic terrorism). This one year is nothing to prove a trend turn.
> Anti-government extremists and white supremacists were responsible for only a minority of extremist related deaths in 2016, though they did commit two triple homicides.
Unfortunately they don't identify those incidents. The GTD doesn't list any triple homicides by the right. Let me know if you can find out what they're talking about here.
> They would exist without Nazis. In fact, Charlottesville may be the first time they've actually fought Nazis.
> The first German movement to call itself Antifaschistische Aktion was proclaimed by the German Communist Party (KPD) in their newspaper Rote Fahne in 1932 and held its first rally in Berlin on 10 July 1932, then capital of the Weimar Republic. During the early 1930s amidst rising tensions between Nazis and the communists, Berlin in particular has been the site of regular and often very violent clashes between the two groups.
I was at G20. We did not initiate the violence, it was initiated by the police on Thursday by attacking the peaceful demonstration (which had even unmasked in the majority, as ordered by police).
Source: Witnessed everything from a bridge above the watercannons.
> which had even unmasked in the majority, as ordered by police
Honestly I find such an order repugnant. Anonymity is crucial to free speech, especially when protesting a group as powerful as G20. I'm sure no-one thinks they should be forced to report their political activity to their employer (at least judging from the outcry when the Trump administration requested all those IP addresses), but such an order is effectively exactly that.
> if it were true, every media outlet in America would be reporting it.
LOL as if the mainstream press would care about right-wing violence. As long as it can be swept under the rug or it's only minorities who suffer, they don't care - simply because the majority of customers are white men, and they are not interested if PoC or minorities get hit. Charlottesville only got attention because the terror victim was white, what happened the day before at night or with the PoC nearly beaten to death in a garage was shadowed by the murder.
There are many sources proving my point, when it comes to the facts. For example:
- The number of violent attacks on U.S. soil inspired by far-right ideology has spiked since the beginning of this century, rising from a yearly avarage of 70 attacks in the 1990s to a yearly avarage of more than 300 since 2001. These incidents have grown even more common since President Donald Trump’s election. (per http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-mil...)
- They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. (per http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-mil...)
These nazis/white supremacists/etc glorify the holocaust, meaning they want to, once again, kill all those they consider inferior: jews/blacks/muslims.
Those protesting against them are the people that think it's not a great idea to kill all the jews/blacks/muslims. Because being anti-Nazi doesn't make you a communist terrorist or whatever.
That really shouldn't be so hard to understand, considering the US once fought a war against those people whose flag is now making a comeback. And I really didn't get the feeling that all those GIs were anarchists and communists.
Additionally, I'd wager that many antifascists would rather not use violence and rather have police take care about that matter.
However, even flying f..ing Nazi swastika flags and thereby create a sphere of threat for minorities (because, what else than "I will kill you when you come here" does a Swastika flag say to a Jew?!) is legal in the US - so in order to create a safe space for minorities of all kinds, Nazis must be driven away. And yes, this includes violence in some occasions (e.g. at Charlottesville, where a gang of white supremacists nearly beat a PoC to death).
If anyone is not fine with Antifa protecting minorities, then by all means lobby your politicians that Nazi symbolism, hate speech and other ways of threatening minorities gets banned. Until this happens, either stand in yourself when you see minorities threatened or at least don't stand in the way of those willing to protect minorities when no one else wants to!
They were violent at the presidential inauguration, the G20 summit, and in attempts to prevent countless people from speaking at colleges. Please don't try to pretend they only fight Nazis.
Snopes does cite the tweet, and does say there were brawls and that some people blame the police for not having intervened enough. Which facts have they missed?
