I agree with your premise, but only if it’s stored locally and not sent to a corporation, who is likely going to share videos that help to convict other people of crimes but not allow access to video that shows cops doing something wrong.
But also, there should be a legal requirement to have a light visible when recording. If you’re found violating this, it should at least be a sizable criminal offense.
I’m sorry, but you’re describing an open-source, decentralised, peer-to-peer, permissionless digital payment network. Which is exactly what cryptocurrency is.
I didn’t say peer-to-peer or permissionless, but that would help. Anyway, yes, those are all things cryptocurrency is, but they are not cryptocurrency. They are a set of design requirements. Cryptocurrency is not necessary for those requirements. There are other ways to potentially meet those requirements, which could be better than cryptocurrency.
This isn’t to say cryptocurrency isn’t the right solution for this. It might be. I don’t think the limitations are as impossible as you do. Sure, costs for running the network would be higher, but what’s the cost for running Visa? I have no idea, but I’m sure it isn’t free. Cost is just something that has to happen. There could be a donation funded foundation that runs it, or it could be funded by a portion of each transaction, or something else. Costs are a hurdle, not a barrier.
I don’t use it, but modern blockchain isn’t how it used to be. It’s no longer proof-of-work, where you do a bunch of computation for nothing (with a few exceptions that still do this).
Basically, what’s required is just a receipt that says “X owes Y $Z”, and that needs to be accepted by nearly everyone. That’s essentially what blockchain is, and it’s also what banks and payment services do. You just need a system you can prove is secure and accurate. Centralization is one option for this, but I see no reason for it to be required.
Also, I disagree that this works because of government backing. That has to do with currency, and there’s no reason this needs that. We just need to track value exchanged. It doesn’t even need to be a real currency as long as we agree on the value and it’s stable. Government backed currency is an option for this, but not necessary.
In addition, any payment provider, centralized or otherwise, can use this currency. Nothing about a government backed currency makes it unsuitable to be used for a decentralized payment processor. The only thing that matters to that functioning is that it’s secure and reliable. It could use USD, Bitcoin, or cows for all the user cares, as long as it’s stable and they can get their value when they need it. Payment processors usually use whatever local currency is, but they aren’t actually using that money. That’s a display. It’s exchanged when needed, or there would be a ton of processing that isn’t required.
None of what they said precludes centralization. You can have a centralized FOSS platform, like the Linux kernel, for example.
Also, I don’t necessarily subscribe to your premise. It needs to be organized, but I don’t think I agree it needs to be centralized.
What do you mean he won’t allow it? If it’s literally selling it off for military aid, which is something he critically needs, that seems exactly like something he’d do.
I don’t see many people moving into Siberia no matter who owns it though. Few people live there, and few want to. It’ll mostly be for control of waterways and resources, but also for strategic control to push Russia away from its more critical locations.
Are you kidding? China has always wanted the eastern part of Russia. Also, China not wanting it would apply to Russia too, right? If it’s worthless, why is anyone claiming it? It obviously isn’t worthless. At minimum, control of the coast and rivers are valuable. There’s also tons of natural resources there.
It’s a lot easier just to buy what they want, specially now when Russia doesn’t really have an option but to sell. It’s also politically much, much more easier than actually moving borders.
That is buying what they want. And moving borders isn’t that hard. They just need to reach an agreement. It’s not like they have physically go and move some line. Borders don’t exist in reality. It’s just what states agree to say they control. The biggest issue would be going in and collecting taxes and whatnot. China’s got the beurocratic infrastructure to handle that pretty easily though, and it’s not like there’s many people or much wealth (in the people) there anyway. It’s all about the resources. Like you said, they’ve been doing it in Africa. Why wouldn’t they do it in their backyard?
Yeah, people see China sending stuff to Russia and think they’re helping, because they’ve been told they’re “allies”. China is gaining a lot from Russia’s failure though. If they don’t actually take over land by the end of this, they will effectively control all the resources in large parts of modern day Russia.
I saw a comment not too long ago about how China should convince Russia to get out of the war, as if it’s harming China. People just don’t understand the geopolitics going on. I don’t expect them to, but people should at least be aware no state is doing anything out of kindness. It’s always at least attempting to benefit themselves. For Europe, Ukraine losing would be a horrible result, for example. There may be a humanitarian aspect, but there’s always something being gained.
Worse as in the actions described are even more vile, not inaccurate.
Legitimately, those are reasons to trust them, not to distrust. Chat bots don’t usually make those mistakes.
I’m 99% sure it’s just rage bait. They get to act like it’s just reporting on what others said (despite them being the ones choosing which to quote), and they also get to include stuff that someone, no matter who they are, will get annoyed with. It’s the worst kind of “reporting” as they add nothing of value, only create negative engagement, and they aren’t even willing to own what they publish.
Based on Ukraine, I think the have about a 40% success rate IIRC. If they get to the target it’s obviously far higher. Armored vehicles may be able to shrug off a fair number of hits though, but they just take one (Un)lucky hit to be taken out. Usually they can get a mobility kill pretty quickly, and then pound it until it explodes or catches fire.
Honestly, it’s in their favor too. Cuba is incredibly close to the US. They’d be a valuable trade partner, if nothing else. This shit is in no one’s favor.
The chicken-egg thing is easy though, the egg came first. All chickens came out of eggs, including the first one. Two non-chickens combined their DNA to make a chicken, which came out of an egg.
I don’t know if you’re trolling or not. There is no sudden point where chicken evolution became a chicken. They just get more and more chicken like traits. It’s a spectrum of evolution, which is still ongoing.
Where did the hormones that control DNA expression come from? DNA.
No? It was in the environment first. Then evolution selected DNA that responded to the environment in ways that helped it reproduce. This then evolved into cells that produce their own hormones that act on DNA in existing pathways. Without DNA already being effected by hormones in the environment there likely wouldn’t have been evolutionary pressure to manufacture them.
Not true. Add human estrogen to sex-undetermined plant DNA…
You’re obviously trolling. Clearly I’m talking about humans. Wtf. Cut out your bad faith shit. You’re wasting both of our time.
Intersex people have sex chromosomes
Yes, and they don’t always match what you’d expect. There are XX “men” and XY “women”.
Everything in your body comes from DNA first. The first bits of you that ever existed were chromosomes, everything else comes as a result of how your dad’s DNA combined with your mom’s DNA to make your DNA. You can add all the outside hormones to your body that you want, without DNA telling your body how to respond to them, all you’d have is dead meat filled with chemicals.
Again, chicken or egg. They don’t exist in a vacuum. There are hormones in their environment when the egg is fertilized that tell the DNA how to express itself. Without hormones all you’d have is dead meat. Your body can not function or form without hormones. DNA is a set of rules, and hormones tell it which rules to follow. They work together. Neither is more important than the other. DNA with “female” hormones develop a female body, no matter what DNA they have, and vice versa. The DNA usually (but not always) is an indicator of what hormones they’ll produce, but the expression is also dictated by hormones.
To be clear though, hormones don’t define how your body functions, that’d be DNA.
Chicken or egg. Hormones don’t work without DNA, but also your cells don’t function without hormones. The DNA has the instructions, but the hormones tell it what instruction to follow. Your cells don’t know to create a leg where your leg is until hormones tell them that they’re supposed to be leg cells. The DNA is the same, but the hormones tell them what to do.
You wouldn’t have hormones or the ability to process them into meaningful signals without DNA.
Sort of true, but we can now add/change hormones that aren’t created in our bodies by design. We also get hormones through our diet too. DNA does have instructions that allow it to produce hormones when the right conditions are met, but that’s not the only way to get them, nor does that define sex as we all produce both sex hormones in different quantities.
but it does have an objective, scientific, apolitical, societally functional meaning.
That’s the funny thing; does it? We all think it does, until you try to define it. Give it a shot. If it’s XX/XY, intersex people break it. If it’s reproduction, sterile people break it. If it’s what gonads you posses, people who have had hysterectomies break it.
I’ve never actually heard a definition that doesn’t break down somewhere. It can still be useful, but it’s a spectrum. If you define it as a spectrum then it’s actually pretty simple, and it’s based on how their body is currently functioning.
Sure it does, it’s the sex you have biologically.
Exactly what I said, there’s no other kind
Biology is how the body is functioning and growing. This is defined by what hormones are in the body, as hormones tell cells how to function. In this way, biological sex is the sex defined by what hormones are in your body. Sex assigned at birth does not necessarily match this.
Biological sex is not a term that has any meaning. It is a term invented to lend the air of scientific authority to a certain group of people making a bad faith argument. Sex is the term that is more commonly used, or sex assigned at birth to be more specific (which implies it changes and is not just gender).
Iff (if and only if) we’re using the words as their definitions imply, biological sex = what hormones are in your body. Hormones define how your body functions, meaning their biological activity. Then it follows that hormone replacement therapy changes biological sex. It isn’t the bullshit static thing the people typically using the word to mean, as a replacement for “sex assigned at birth”. That term they won’t use because it lends credence to the idea it can change, rather than something that makes them sound as if their opinion is based in science.
It’s not redundant. I’d say it’s wrong. If biology is how the body is working, biological sex should be the same as hormonal sex, which would be the same as someone’s sex confirmation therapy is making it, not sex assigned at birth.
It is not implied to mean “biological sex” because that’s not a term anyone used until anti-trans people made it up. It is only used rhetorically to imply their view is the one supported by science. It isn’t.
So immediately jumping to “dogwhistle” every time you hear someone say something that’s supposedly in this list of secret right-wing code words is kind of a disingenuous argument and you’re just going to alienate people who then won’t take you seriously in the future.
Dog whistles can become mainstream. It doesn’t change the origin. Just because you hear it on TV sometimes doesn’t mean that’s the correct term. It was made up as a rhetorical argument to imply superiority. That’s it.
Biology is a term used to describe how your body functions. Hormones changing your body is biology, whether they’re natural or otherwise. “Biological sex” is a dog whistle. It is not a term used by people who are being honest. It’s just sex, or sex assigned at birth. “Biological sex” is a term for bigots to sound like they have science on their side.
Just FYI, I’ve never been asked about my “biological sex” from a doctor, and I’m pretty sure you haven’t either. You’ve been asked about your sex. That’s it. “Biological sex” is a right-wing dog whistle.
It’s the digital age. As much as Russia has tried to stop it, anyone who cares already knows this. They just think it doesn’t really effect them, or they buy into the bullshit Russia has said that they have to fight Ukraine because of Nazis or whatever bullshit.