hellojesus

96 ms·

1111.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Morality has nothing to do with it. If the law says one thing and you did not violate it, no problems. Spirit of the law is dumb and generally not applicable here from what I can tell. Though your observation is correct. The cops don't
1112.
by hellojesus 5y ago
What's wrong with just allowing users to mute/ignore others? Instead of banning anonymity (which is a ridiculous thing to do), platforms can provide better tools to allow users to curate content or join discussion rooms. If you wa
1113.
by hellojesus 5y ago
You are correct. My first sentence was imprecise and inaccurate. Government does exist to, among other things, regulate what private businesses can do. I should have stated that governments should not create regulation when there is either
1114.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Instead what if we just create companies that don't comply with any court mandated record-snitching? What if we find a way to monetize without selling user data or even logging it beyond the bare minimum? What we really need are people
1115.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Another reason to wear Reflectables on the daily.
1116.
by hellojesus 5y ago
The government has no business banning the way private companies operate. There is no quantifiable harm. Instead, just stop using those platforms if you don't like them. It's just that simple.
1117.
by hellojesus 5y ago
I didn't make the cut. That's sad.
1118.
by hellojesus 5y ago
He has been arguing mostly the same points for the past decade, but at least he's been consistent. The old saying comes to mind, "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent." I wanted to believe in MMT; it
1119.
by hellojesus 5y ago
I'm honestly surprised the above hasn't happened with Yellen coming out and telling everyone that the US will default on its debt if it can't borrow more money to pay back the people it already borrowed from. Peter Schiff has
1120.
by hellojesus 5y ago
This solution works then, right? So given this implementation (and not a play store or ios download), one should be safe from xzy snooping? Edit: As someone that has heard of forward secrecy but not how it relates to pgp, these were helpful
1121.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Agree fully with this point if it is considered income and not a gift. Let's assume the income case, a qyestion: What would happen if someone took these coins then transfered them to a new wallet while claiming that their private key w
1122.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Why is it Craigslist's burden to enforce the law? Presumably, if some law were being violated a potential renter could sue, no?
1123.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Given the risk of xyz agency, there seem to be only a couple options to me: - side-load a peer reviewed apk so you can check the sigs and make sure all crypto is being done locally (and to make sure that the implementation is solid) - manag
1124.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Yes, exactly. Making something illegal is serious. The result of making something like this illegal is: 1. Person is not allowed to talk OR 2. Person is allowed to talk but is now compelled to only espouse a message approved by the governme
1125.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Edit: now I can reply to Cody. Cody, what other reason would exist to make denial of the holocaust or anything else illegal if not to hide something?
1126.
by hellojesus 5y ago
Have you considered that the number of vaccine hesitant people has increased specifically as a result of the ever-increasing suppression of dissent? To me it seems like that's exactly what's happening. The US should have handled t
1127.
by hellojesus 5y ago
I fixed any concern by buying long term disability insurance before I got it. May be worth checking out.
1128.
by hellojesus 5y ago
There is absolutely no reason a government should make such things as denialism illegal. An act like that would certainly breed doubt immediately because the only reason to make something like that illegal IS because you're hiding some