wu-ikkyu

35 ms·

331.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
What am I mistaken about?
332.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Wouldn't a cell phone video of the vote seller casting their ballot suffice as proof to the buyer?
333.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>If someone breaks in to your online bank account, they can steal some money - at best it's insured and you lose nothing, at worst a single person's life savings are gone. You're framing this completely wrong. Hackers have
334.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Collusion between supposed political enemies has happened frequently throughout history
335.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
This comment chain originated by asking why should banks run their business online, because they are also prone to malfunctions and hacks have consequences (grave) on others.
336.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
What's to stop you from selling you paper vote to someone?
337.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
And how would a paper system prevent that?
338.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Observation of vote counts is only a 1 to 1 relationship. You can't know if the whole election at scale is safe based on watching one person count votes. Perhaps it might feel safe to some, but that doesn't mean it is. Moreover,
339.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
So how is this different with a public blockchain type ledger?
340.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Only a small percentage of people at any one time can withdraw their money physically, otherwise you have a bank run.
341.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>You can bank online because you (individual) and the bank (presumably a juridical individual) agree to it. This is false. All banks are conducting their business electronically whether you like it or not. The global economy is run prima
342.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
That doesn't really matter, because you can only be present at one place at a time. You still have to trust other anonymous parties
343.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
It doesn't matter if it's forbidden to take pictures if it's done in private
344.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
I don't know how much easier it is to talk about but I do agree the definitions have expanded greatly. Perhaps a more objective measure is needed, such as the suicide rate: U.S. Suicide Rate Surges to a 30-Year High https://
345.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Bread and circuses[1] satifies only the most base of human needs[2]. Perhaps that is why stress, anxiety, depression, and mental health issues have been on the rise for quite some time now. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki
346.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
That's a very narrow short term analysis, as compared to the broader long term analysis detailed in the discussion of this article. Also consider that your article's starting point is 2009, right after the massive global economic
347.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>It's not a zero sum game >1. Sell $500M of shares they are keeping, hence dropping the price of the companies they are invested in. Employees of these companies lose. What you just described is a zero sum game. >It's a m
348.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Spending is moreso exchanging, and investing is moreso like loaning. They both have strings attached.
349.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is the one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it." -Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went, John Kenneth Galbraith >Why don&#x2
350.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Sure, how about the massive wave of increasing power and centralization at the heart of where money/wages originate: the finance sector. As well as declining union participation rates
351.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
So the basic question is: why are wages stagnating in the face of increased productivity? What is wrong with a simple, non-technical answer like: because the people at the top don't want to share ?
352.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
This isn't natural, though. It's the designed goal of centuries-old patent law which has become counter productive.
353.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>When is the last time you were swayed by lefty or righty radical? That's one of the arguments against them. People become siloed into filter bubbles by their algos and are insulated against conflicting viewpoints.
354.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>You are free to not comply, pay with an alternative method or shop elsewhere You are increasingly not free to choose an alternative, given the increasing centralization of the "too big to fail" finance and tech industries.
355.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
I was making the pertinent point that minimal "compensation" does not make the mass exploitation of unwitting persons ethical.
356.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Slaves are compensated too, with food, water, and shelter. Does that mean it's ethical?
357.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>When we label it as "evil" we absolve ourselves of our duty to act Likewise, when we automatically label someone as crazy/mentally ill we absolve society from critical introspection as to the causative influence it may ha
358.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Perhaps it is taboo to say this but it seems like a catch-22 to me: that in an effort to prevent mass murder with firearms, many US citizens would turn to the same government which has prepared to commit the greatest indiscriminant mass mur
359.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
I would consider the mental/emotional manipulation of billions of people solely for monetary gain to be malicious. Fear is a cash cow for advertising. Your safety is indeed at stake when so much sensitive personal information is aggreg
360.
by wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Indeed -- and all of these examples were driven by hysteria on both sides.

More ›