darawk

91 ms·

901.
by darawk 6y ago
Yes they are. Please don't spread this nonsense: https://cointelegraph.com/news/trueusd-audit-shows-full-us-d... Not only are many of them full backed, but they all trade extremely close to parity with one another
902.
by darawk 6y ago
There is a very wide gulf between sniffing and companies explicitly building tools to facilitate government censorship and suppression.
903.
by darawk 6y ago
They didn't observe a correlation, though. They observed Herpes causing Alzheimers lesions in vitro.
904.
by darawk 6y ago
> It’s not undetectable at all. When you go to vote, you give your name and address, and get crossed off a list. If someone did that fraudulently, it would be noticed when the person who’s identity you stole comes to vote, it is obvious.
905.
by darawk 6y ago
> The reason we are talking past each other is that you’re describing a neat hypothetical model that fits your belief of what is worth discussing. Whereas I’m describing a nexus of actual threats, carried out by actual attackers, in the
906.
by darawk 6y ago
It's difficult to pull off in a coordinated way. But coordination attacks are not the only thing that matters. It shouldn't be possible for a liberal kid's conservative parents who know he doesn't vote to vote for him. B
907.
by darawk 6y ago
No, there is no credible way that a single actor could carry out a large scale attack that way. But there are credible ways that individuals can vote illegally extremely easily, and would never get detected. Secondly, we have no reliable da
908.
by darawk 6y ago
There is no evidence that voting machines have been hacked, either. Why is the standard of evidence for one different than the other? And more to the point, since when does patching a vulnerability require evidence of exploitation. We would
909.
by darawk 6y ago
That is an orthogonal issue. Turnout is unrelated to security. Identifying voters, and ensuring the integrity of the voting mechanism are both important security issues.
910.
by darawk 6y ago
I think the point is that if the people agitating about productivity being evil had their way we'd all still be hunter gatherers. Yes, it may well be that pausing development where we are would be more comfortable for those of us curre
911.
by darawk 7y ago
> How can you still say that when the crisis show us that critical jobs are underpaid, sometimes practically slave labor. Your arguments get countered every single time in this thread, so I'm not surprised he or she didn't repl
912.
by darawk 7y ago
> The second point is actually my point, and while I'd like them to cite something (there are weird strategic cites throughout), I'll take it. But I'd like to reemphasize this real quick: "poverty may rise as wealth i
913.
by darawk 7y ago
> You don't mean "capitalist" here. You mean, "proponent of Free Markets." I just mean any halfway intelligent person who has money and wants more. Their ideology doesn't matter. > An equally profitable &
914.
by darawk 7y ago
> No that study explores innovation as a cause of inequality. Which is still bad but not what we're talking about here. It shows that inequality and innovation are correlated across the globe. There is no way to disentangle causalit
915.
by darawk 7y ago
> Study after study has shown that income and wealth inequality stifles innovation (again among some other pretty bad things). You mean studies like this one? https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1&#x
916.
by darawk 7y ago
> Maybe in a perfect world with equally distributed wealth it might be the case. But normally all cities have well connected wealthier groups inside. So, you are positing that the wealthy elite of Munich have come together and agreed not
917.
by darawk 7y ago
Property developers would be building apartments in Atherton if they were allowed to. It is regulation that prevents it. It is local property owners electing city council members that creates the regulation.
918.
by darawk 7y ago
> So it is true, it's just not complete? Yes, it is a thing that happens. But the original commenter described it as the only thing that happens, which is not true. > What if the best way to do this is to remove the capitalist
919.
by darawk 7y ago
> My point is that a lot of people have this Atlas Shrugged view of the world, where the noble entrepreneur is lashed to earth by envious, regulation loving, Democratic bureaucrats. But if take that view, then we'll get rid of regul
920.
by darawk 7y ago
That's not how anything works. You would be right if one person owned the entire city. But that isn't the case. The equilibrium of independent competing actors is for them to build. Yes, if they all colluded together and agreed no
921.
by darawk 7y ago
Firstly, that's just not true. That is a thing that happens, but it is not the only thing that happens. Bureaucracies come about for all sorts of reasons, and in all sorts of ways. The one you describe is only one among many of those m
922.
by darawk 7y ago
> I don’t like it when people anthropomorphize concepts like economic markets, but I _especially_ don’t like it when they do this to make it seem like the anthropomorphization should be a sympathetic character to the reader. > Like on
923.
by darawk 7y ago
> Interesting claim. Do you want to detail this more? Most of my experience is not with the State itself being an obstacle, but as a tool in the hands of landlords and capitalists to help enforce scarcity. I'm not even sure I really
924.
by darawk 7y ago
> But complaining about either regulation or bureaucracy at a general level is the policy equivalent of approaching software by making general complaints about how terrible existing code is: sure, some of it is probably sub-optimal and s
925.
by darawk 7y ago
It's a problem in most major urban centers. I live in Los Angeles, and it's certainly a problem here.
926.
by darawk 7y ago
> Markets build in response to incentives. Most American production choices are determined by markets, including the choices of investors allocating capital. This leaves out the most important problem though: regulatory capture and burea
927.
by darawk 7y ago
Dianne Feinstein is the absolute worst, especially on these issues, but also many others. I don't know how she keeps getting elected. Here's a quick rundown: Feinstein on internet freedom and free speech: * Feinstein was the origi
928.
by darawk 7y ago
Economies of scale. Employees doing the picking is much more organized and requires far less people than customers doing it themselves.
929.
by darawk 7y ago
This is a pretty reasonable thing to suspend at a time when landlords are essentially forgiving huge amounts of rent. It's super reasonable that they be able to deduct those losses on their taxes in an unlimited fashion.
930.
by darawk 7y ago
> My advisor's explanation on publishing was that if we had great results that followed our initial theory of what's going on then we could write a paper and nobody would question it. But, now that we contradict theory the thre

More ›