zzzpaz

6 ms·

1.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
> You keep comparing the colosseum killings to events that transpired over large geographical areas, for different purposes than entertainment. I see, so enslaving, torturing, raping Africans and native American was not entertainment rig
2.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
It's an example to dispute the false claim that 10 years is little time for a technology to mature. If 10 years are enough for hardware let alone software. Another example are social media, from 2004 to 2014, they were widely used by a
3.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
The same goes for blockchain if you want go to that extend. Blockchain is a concept of 1982. Nakamoto stated to work on the code for bitcoin in 2007 and released in 2009. > Cryptographer David Chaum first proposed a blockchain-like proto
4.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
Agreed, but unfortunately is the sad reality. And social media didn't help either my friend
5.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
You tend to realize this after you've done this experiences. If you don't, you'd miss out something and somehow you will get it back later. I know of people who got married before 20 yo, been together for a decade, got kids a
6.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
Indeed. The tech is not scalable and in 10 years very little has been done to make the decentralized dream come true
7.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
None of this is widely used. The only widely used purpose of blockchain is trading. > But 10 years is a short time span. Internet took more time than that to mature. 10 years in tech is definitely enough. Most of the biggest trend mature
8.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
> Guo joined a small but visible handful of Chinese urban professionals who are rattling the ruling Communist Party by rejecting grueling careers for a “low-desire life.” What this has to do with politics? A person's personal choice
9.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
The Colosseum was active for 400 years, you consider that a relatively short period of time? In total they estimated that 400.000 people died in there, in 400 years! That's 1.000 people a year. Even if you double or triple that number
10.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
Reminds me of The Late Mattia Pascal romance
11.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
It's just a useless observation. Same as being an alien approaching our planet and saying "oh.... Look at this planet. Over the years billions of people must have died". Well, while is true that many people died in the coloss
12.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
> So just because it is a long time ago, it is not allowed to be in awe of the staggering amount of deaths that occurred in one single location? You can from your individual point of view of course. But not to argue on historical facts.
13.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
I just said it multiple times just go and look at my replies. Is not required to have an opinion on past events based on nowadays standards. Historian do that all the time, they look at the history with objectiveness especially when is far
14.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
This comment is so weak. Human life cannot be counted in percentage as every life matter. I'm surprised that doesn't even have down votes.
15.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
> The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace. Please don't put word in my mouth as I never said what you just mentio
16.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
You draw the line the same way history draws it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods We're in the contemporary era and things that happened in the Nazi time are still relevant. While things that
17.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
I'm here to show how empty these arguments are as compared as what happened next in history or even on how we treat people in some war zone nowadays So said, is not that hard to understand that the article was about showing something t
18.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
It's not necessary to drag USA, but it's just an example of how stupid these arguments are. Historical facts needs to be analysed with the lens of what was considered normal at that time not with the lens on what we consider to be
19.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
One point is to look at the far last (2 thousands years ago) and one point is to see the recent and contemporary history. We have countries like the US that have been bullying and fighting wars around the world since the end of the world wa
20.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
Yes is still alive in many places US included. But this comment is just stupid, everybody knows what happened in the colosseum so does everybody knows that major civilizations were build on top of genocides. North and south America, Austral
21.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
So we should glorify a place like United States of America which was built on top of one of the worst genocide of the history? Where slavery was the norm till 1863 and since the end of world war 2 it has been involved in numerous wars arou
22.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
Same millions of lives were lost to accomodate the current United States of America. Perhaps we should avoid looking at historical events with the current judgement and ideology. It was a different world then and execution were pretty norma
23.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
That's your point, my point is the one of the comment. And I guess the government didn't give the PC to everyone because "oh we need to stop our Bill Gates to run out of the country". But rather, their interest was to gi
24.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
That their family would use it for daily needs instead of a computer. Poor people can't think in long terms as they're struggling with their daily needs thus it makes sense for them to solve these rather than think what if my kid
25.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
What's the point? Indeed that's your attitude and is ok. At my age when I was in school the whole class had a computer (like 25 of us). Today of that class only 3 work using computer everyday. The second part of my comment explain
26.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
Bank make money Insiders make money Who buy the shares at IPO price most likely make money All the rest take the risk
27.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
> the sad truth is that many times cases like this are rare exceptions. Well, giving a computer to someone doesn't turn them into a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs just because they own it. Depends on the attitude of whom receive it. You c
28.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
> Companies also aim for a service-type of business, where you basically take a cab - just without a driver (who again can get distracted, tired, etc.) I'm not seeing this with the current situation, given that everybody is aiming t
29.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
My argument if that a mix of human plus self driving cars as yet to be tried at massive scale (eg. 50% self driving / 50% human or whatever that percentage is). With this mixture I don't think we will be able to actually "red
30.
by zzzpaz 5y ago
I'm more or less of the same opinion and honestly. The fact that human drivers are unsafe adding new "automated" drivers in the road would automatically make the human one safer? I don't think so. Before you can reach a

More ›